} LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



{UMTED STATES OF AMERICA.} 



MANUAL 



OF 



BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 



BY 



JOSEPH MUENSCHER, B.D. 



GAMBIER, O. 

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
MDCCCLXV. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 18C5, by 

JOSEPH MUENSCHER, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Uuited States, 

for the Northern District of Ohio. 



to 



PREFACE 



A work of convenient size on the Principles of 
Biblical Interpretation adapted to the wants of 
ministers and theological students, and at the 
same time of a cast sufficiently popular to be ac- 
ceptable to intelligent laymen, has long been re- 
garded as a desideratum. It has been the aim of 
the writer in the preparation of the follo\^dng un- 
pretending manual to supply this want. That the 
subject of which it treats is one of great impor- 
tance, no intelligent reader of the Bible mil be 
disposed to deny ; and yet for the want, perhaps, 
of a book on the science easily accessible, and 
neither too concise and technical on the one hand, 
nor too copious and diffuse on the other, it has not 
received the attention either from ministers or 
from the readers of the Bible generally, to which 
it is justly entitled. That the present work 
may be instrumental of promoting a more gen- 
eral appreciation of the science, and of directing 
the minds of Biblical students to a more attentive 
study of the Principles w^hich lie at the basis of all 
sound and rational interpretation of the Sacred 
Volume, is the earnest prayer of 

THE AUTHOR. 

Mt. Vernon, C, May 2, 1865. 



PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 



CHAPTEK I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

The blessed Gad has been pleased to commu* 
nicate to man a revelation of himself, of his 
providential arrangements and designs of grace 
and mercy towards our race, of his relation to 
us and our duty to him, to ourselves, and to the 
human family. This revelation was not made 
at one time in all its entireness, and through a 
single individual, but in sundry parts or portions, 
through different persons and at various times, 
extending through a period of four thousand 
years. Embodied in permanent records origin- 
ally w^ritten in languages which have long since 
ceased to be spoken, this revealed religion, to- 
gether with its history during the long period 
just named, has been handed down to the pres- 
ent day, and still claims to be the rule of our 
faith, the ground of our hope, and the guide of 
our life. The sacred oracles have been placed 
in our hands with the solemn and oft repeated 
injunction that they be made the subject of 
earnest and prayerful study by all men without 
exception who have the ability and opportunity; 
and that we '' so read^ mark, learn, and inwardly 



2 INTRODUCTORY RE3IARKS. 

♦digest them," as to become wise unto salvatioii 
i^hrough faith in Christ Jesus. For this end they 
liave been translated into the different languages 
«of men, and widely circulated over the face of 
the earth. In the contents of these sacred rec- 
ords all men are equally interested, and the 
same responsibility rests upon all in respect to 
the use they make of them. But that which is 
the duty of all Christians in this regard, is es- 
pecially and pre-eminently incumbent on the 
Ministers of Eeligion, because it is their pai*tic- 
mlar vocation to apply themselves closely and 
diligently to the study of the Scriptures, and to 
acquire an extensive and critical knowledge of 
them, so as to be able to explain them to the 
people committed to their charge, and so to ex- 
hibit the truths they contain to the minds of 
their hearers as that their understandings may 
become enlightened, their affections moved, and 
their wills rightly directed and controlled. They 
are the authorized public teachers of revealed 
religion, by whom the Church is to be thorough- 
ly instructed in the principles of that religion, 
and grounded in the faith once delivered to the 
Saints, and they are expected to be qualified to 
divide rightly the word of God, and to bring 
forth from the treasury of that word new things 
as well as old. It becomes, therefore, a question 
of profound interest and importance to every 
private Christian, and especially to every minis- 
ter of the Gospel, and to all those who are look- 
ing forward to the sacred office, in what manner 
-and spirit, and by the aid of what helps and 
/guides, shall I apply myself to the study of the 
IDivine Word, so as most successfully to acquire 
ia ^proper understanding of its .meaning, and, if 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. S 

Beed be, so as rightly to explain and unfold that 
meaning to others. 

That the sacred scriptures should not be in- 
terpreted according to the whims and caprice, 
the fancy or the prejudices of each individual, 
but according to some fixed principles, and in 
the use of appropriate helps and guides, must he. 
quite obvious to all, and is so generally admitted 

:, as hardly to require an extended argument. But 

•what principles shall be adopted, and w^hat 

, guides followed,- and what weiglit shall be given 
to each respectively, are points of very grave 
importance, in regard to w^hich Christian men 

.and Christian ministers are by no means agreed. 
Hence the almost innumerable aiid contradicto- 
ry interpretations w^hich have been given to the 
Scriptures; and hence the multiplicity of sects 
and denominations into which the Christian 
Church is divided. That entire unanimity of 
€/pinion in regard^ to the meaning of every part 
of the Bible will ever be reached by any process 
now known to man, is more than, as the human 
mind is now constituted, we are warranted to 
expect. A miracle greater by far than has yet 
been performed, w^ould be required to accomplish 
such a result. At the same-time, it cannot be 

, questioned, that a great approximation may be 
made towards it by a better appreciation and a 
more diligent study of sound and well-defined 
principles, and by a more careful, independent 
and discriminating use of such aids as w^e pos- 
sess for the correct understanding and interpret- 

. ation of the Bible. In the following work an 
attempt is made to exhibit and illustrate the 
principles and laws of Biblical interpretation, 

^ and. to show the grounds on ^ which they^rest^ Ip. 



4" THfe I3IF6BTANCII OF 

a forai adapted to the comprehension not only*' 
of scholars and clergymen, who may be supposed* 
to be somewhat familiar with the subject, but 
also of that large class of intelligent laymen, who ' 
are honorably and usefully employed in impart- 
ing biblical instruction to the rising generation^ 
in our Sunday Schools and Bible Classes. 



CHAPTSE II. 



THE IMPORTANCE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETA- 
TION. 

The only yerbal revelation which God has^ 
snade to the human race, is contained in the. 
Eible. jSTo other writings than the canonical 
books of the* Old and Isew Testament are re- 
garded by the Protestant Church throughout' 
Christendom as of divine authority. No others 
are, in the tniest and highest sense of the term, 
inspired. The Bibk, arid the Eible alone, divest- 
ed of all apocryphal additions, and as distinguish- 
ed from all oral and apostolical tradition, is the: 
only infallible and sufficient rule of faith anc^' 
practice, and is possessed of paramount and: 
final authority. This is one of the fundamental* 
principles of Protestantism,-=-^one of the twa 
main pillars which support the superstructure. 
Other books may contain truth of the greatest^ 
Value^' and be T^^-orthy of all commendation, B^^^ 



BIBLICAL JNTERPRET^TION. 5 

' JiGwever excellent, they are merely human; they 

chavenot God for their author; they cannot com- 
mand our implicit belief, homage and obedi- 

, ence. This exalted position is accorded to the 
Bible alone. What say the Scriptures? Here 
is the appeal, and this appeal is .final in regard 
to all questions in which the vital interests of 
the soul are concerned. ^' Holy Scri2:>ture," iji 
the language of the Thirty -nine articles of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, ^'containeth all 

«'things necessary to sah'ation, so that whatsoever 
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, 
is not required of any man, that it should be be- 

:lieved as an article of faith, or bethought requi- 
site or necessary to salvation." The Confessions 

-of all Protestant Churches are in harmony witji 
this declaration. 

Now, the Bible being the record of a Revela- 
tion, is necessarily written in human language. 
Intended for the use and instruction of m.an- 

,kind, it could not have been otherwise. K it 
had been clothed in signs and symbols which 
were unintelligible to us, it. would not have been 

■ a revelation,-^ it could not have been understood. 
It might as well not have, been communicated. 
The language then, in which the Bible is writ- 
ten is human, marked with all the imperfection 
which characterizes human language^ and sub- 
ject to all the laws which* govern it. The thoughts, 
the ideas and sentiments conveyed to. ^ur- mind 
through this medium, are divine; but .all else is 
of the earth earthly. The iaoguages in which 
the sacred scriptures were originally written, are 
foreign ta us, and becamei(>-ig since, as to all 

^practical purposes, dead. Hence, if the Scrip- 

'/ture£ are 1,0 be understood; in the original^, tiie^ 



9 THif^ iMPnrnrANCE ' of ' 

languages must be thoroughly and criticall/' 
studiedin the use of all the appropriate helps^^ 
which we can command. If they are to be read 
and understood by the masses of mankind, who' 
have not the opportunity of becoming acquaint- 
ed with the original, they must be translated^ 
into the living vernacular languages of the* 
earth. 

The Scriptures, we believe, were written to be? 
jfead and understood by all men, and not exclu- 
sively by any particular class. Every man has^ 
an equal and common interest in them. They 
contain the doctrines and principles by which- 
he is to govern his belief They contain the 
law by which he is to regulate his life. But, al-- 
though the Scriptures may be faithfully transla- 
ted into the vernacular language, so that all who 
are able to read may have access to them, yet 
many circumstances may and do operate to pre-^ 
vent them from being fully understood by the 
majority of those who read them. The want of 
competent learning, the want of sufficient lei- 
sure, the imperfections which unavoidably ad- 
here to human language as an instrument of 
thought, an imperfect knowledge of the laws of 
intrepretation,- or an incapacity to apply them 
rightly ; the changes which are constantly tak- 
ing place in the usages of language, the differ- 
ence in the forms of expression and modes of 
thinking, in -the manners and customs of differ-' 
ent countries^ a^ad nations, and ages of the world; - 
the great antiquity of the scriptures; the extent- 
and variety of the sacred volume, the different^" 
periods in which, and persons by whom it was 
written, and to whom it was immediately ad- 
dressed^' together with the loftiness and my^teri'- 



BIBXICAL INTERPRETATION. 7 

ousness of the subjects presented, are among the- 
circumstances which render it exceedingly diffi- 
cult for the uneducated to* obtain, by personal! 
study merely, an accurate knowledge of ever/ 
point revealed in the Scriptures. Hence an order 
of living teachers, thoroughly instructed them- 
selves in the Bible, and competent to aid and 
instruct others, is required. Our blessed Saviour 
accordingly ordained twelve apostolic men for 
this purpose, and empowered them to commis- 
sion others for the same work, so that there 
might be to the end of time duly authorized 
and qualified living teachers- in the church of 
Christ. 

To defend, explain, illustrate and apply the 
sacred Scriptures, is the chief part, the highest 
function of the Christian ministry. The min- 
isters of the Gospel are, by virtue of their office, 
emphatically and pre-eminently teachers — ex- 
pounders of God's word. By the requisitions of 
their master, and by their ordination vows, they 
are bound to feed the fl'ock committed to their 
care. There are, doubtless, other duties apper- 
taining to their office of great importance, which 
they may not neglect; but their main business; 
is to explain, illustrate and enforce the truths 
whieh are contained in the Bible. The Bible 
is the Protestant minister's text book — the opetij 
Bible, which others may read as well as he, and 
by which they may judge of the correctness of his; 
statements and views. From this fountain of 
truth he must be constantly bringing forth 
things new and old, for the edification of the^ 
Church, the refutation of error, the convictioni 
of the individual conscience, and the establish- 
ment of the truth. For the accomplishiaerLt «f 



8 THE IMPORTANCE OF 

this object, he must be conversant with the sa- 
cred scriptures, with their evidences, history, 
doctrines and precepts. He must be acquainted 
with them not merely in a translation, but ac- 
quire a competent knowledge of the languages 
in which they were written, and be able by an 
examination of the original text, to draw his ex- 
positions from that. In all matters of contro- 
versy the appeal must be made to this original 
text. This alone is final and conclusive. The 
foundation, therefore, of a theological and min- 
isterial education must be laid in the critical, 
grammatical, and exegetical study of the Holy 
Scriptures. Exegetical theology must be the 
groundwork of a thorough ministerial education 
in every age; but it is especially important in 
the age in which we now live. That education 
should, doubtless, be such as will enable the 
ambassador for Christ to cope with living men, 
and living ideas, and to employ most successful- 
ly those weapons which the present mode in 
which the Christian warfare is conducted, de- 
mands. That theological training which might 
have been of great service and quite sufficient in 
the mediaeval ages, would be entirely inadequate 
and answer no valuable purpose now. It must 
be adapted to the demands of the present age., 
and to the present advanced state of biblical and 
theological science. 

A thorough and critical knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures is particularly necessary for the 
ministry of the Church at the present day, be- 
cause the Bible is the battle-ground of skepticism 
and infidelity. The chief assaults from this quar- 
ter are now directed against the Bible itself. 
Manj sieieiitiEc men of ikeptical views and pro- 



BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. d 

^clivities, are laboring hard to prove that the 
facts of natural science and the statements of 
iScripture are contradictory. Rationalism, also, 
which is but another name for the most subtle 
form of infidelity within the bosom of the Church 
itself, is wholly occupied with attacks on the 
Bible, and the position it occupies and the facil- 
ities it enjoys for mischief, render it a far more 
formidable and dangerous enemy than open and 
.avowed infidelity. On the ground of philosoph- 
ical criticism, it aims to overthrow the canonici- 
ty, the integrity, the credibility, and the inspirar- 
tion of Scripture; and while it professes great 
respect for the morality of the Bible, and claims 
to be its true friend and advocate, and has really 
•done some service in elucidating its contents, 
the legitimate and inevitable effect of its labors 
is to impair, if not entirely to destroy, all confi- 
dence in that blessed volume as containing a su- 
pernatural revelation. 

Nor is Rationalism any longer .a distant ene- 
my confined to the country which gave it birth. 
It is rapidly making its way over the Christian 
world. Its deadly poison is working extensively 
in England, both in the Established Church and 
among the Dissentei^; nor has our own country 
entirely escaped its polluting touch and de- 
structive influence. Now one indispensible 
means of checking the progress of this foe to 
piety is the thorough training of candidates for 
the ministry in the critical study of the Bible. 
It is impossible for any minister to contend suc- 
.cessfully with this great evil who is not thor- 
.oughly versed in exegetical theology; who does 
snot understand tlhe languages oi Xhe Bible, and 



10 THE IMPORTANCE OF, kCl 

who is not familliar wit!i the principles of BiblK- 
cal criticism and interpretation. 

The Bible is, moreover, the battle-ground of 
the numerous sects and parties into which Pro- 
testant Christendom is divided. These acknowl^- 
edge no other standard than the Bible. The^^ 
recognize this and no other authority as final 
and conclusive. They plant themselves on the 
Word of God interpreted in accordance with the 
laws of language and of rational exegesis. No 
minister, therefore, can be properly prepared to 
defend 'and maintain the distinctive doctrines 
and peculiarities of his own church, or to appre- 
ciate the arguments by which others support 
their peculiar views, who does not understand 
the right method of explaining the Word of 
God. 

The field of research in exegetical theology, is 
both attractive and boundless; the mine to 
be explored is inexhaustable. This interesting 
department of study, from its very nature, .is 
progressive. All other branches of knowledge,- 
— philology, history, chronology, antiquities, ge- 
ology, astronomy, geography, etc. — are constant- 
ly pouring their treasures into its lap, and shed- 
ding light on the pages of the Bible. The min- 
ister, therefore, who diligently applies himself to 
the cultivation of this field, and acquires a taste 
for it, cannot fail to find it a constant source of 
delight, and to derive from it a perpetual incen*-- 
tive to increased diligence. He will gather from- 
it the best materials of thought for the pulpit 
and become eminently fitted for that expository 
preaching which consists in the faithful presenta- 
tion of the Word of God in all its truthfulness* 
and fullness. " 



^m-E f aiilEE GREAT LIGfltTS. W 

CHAPTER III. 

THE THREE GREAT LIGHTS. 

Three great lights have been furnished us to' 
be our guides in the study and interpretation of 
the Word of God, to which it is of the utmost^ 
importance that we should take heed, if we 
would avoid the numerous mistakes and errors 
into which so many have fallen. These are the- 
light of reason, the light of authority^ and the 
light of the Holt/ Spirit. Of these the first named' 
is of primary and paramount importance, be^ 
cause it is a gift bestowed upon all mankind, and- 
conferred for the very purpose, among others, of- 
enabling us to hold intelligent communication- 
with our fellow beings, and impart reciprocally 
to one another, by means of oral and written 
language, a knowledge of our individual thoughts 
and feelings, desires and purposes, views and 
opinions. Human language is the product of 
human reason. And as the faculty of reason is 
the parent of language, so it is likewise the proper 
interpreter of it. The light of authority is not an 
original, distinct, and independent light, like- 
that of reason, but Hke that of the moon, it is a' 
borrowed light, and derives all its illuminating 
power from the other two — reason and the Holy; 
Spirit^ and its aid is valuable and reliable only 
so far as it is a true reflection from these. The" 
light of the Hohj Spirit is an inward, hidden* 
light, not outward and manifest to observation, 
and not distinguishable from the ordinary ope- 
rations of the intellectual powers or the natural! 
donscience by him who enjoys it. Hence it is^ 



12 THE S^HREE GREAT LIGHTS. 

3.iable to be mistaken and misapprehended. No 
.one of these guides is to be followed exclusively, 
;and to the neglect or rejection of the other two. 
Errors without number have sprung from a dis- 
^regard of this simple, but most .important rule. 
An exclusive reliance on reason is the fruitful 
jsource of rationfiJ.ism and skepticism. A like 
exclusive reliance on human authority, whether 
it be that of an individual, or of the Church, 
tends to degrade the human intellect, to destroy 
.all self-reliance, to weaken our sense of personal 
responsibility, and becomes the foster-parent of 
blind credulity, bigotry, intolerance, and perse- 
.'Cution. An entire dependance on the supposed 
inward light or illumination of the Holy Spirit, 
in disregard of reason and authority, is the pro- 
lific source of i^iysticism, fanaticism, and latitu- 
•dinarianism. But where the aid of all these is 
sought in proportion to their intrinsic and rela- 
'tive importance, there we irnay expect to find a 
safe, sound, reliable interpjjeter of the Word of 
^God. 

1. The light of reason. By this is meant the 
.exercise of our natural faculties in connexion 
with the use of such means'- and instrumentali- 
ties as are afforded us by literature and science 
for the investigation of truth. This is necessary 
to the attainment of any branch of knowledge, 
and to the understanding of any production of 
human genius and learning. And it is not less 
necessary for gaining a knowledge of revealed 
truth ; for the Deity, in condescending to em- 
ploy human language as the .vehicle of commu- 
inication with his rational creatures, manifestly 
.intended that it should be understood, and that 
tthe meaning of the communication should b© 



THIi' THREE GREA'^ LIOIiTS. IS 

ascertanied by the same means and in the same' 
manner ^s the import of all other oral or written^ 
communications is determined. Otherwise it 
eould not be comprehended, attd the professed' 
3*evelation would be no revelation at all. 

The exercise of our intellectual faculties in 
the investigation and discovery of revealed 
tiruth, implies of course the right of private^ i. e. 
df individual judgment ; for to employ our reason 
in the Study of Scripture, would be of no avail, 
tmless we are at liberty to embrace the deduc- 
iions to w^hich our reason may lead us. Deny 
this right, and the" injunction of our blessed' 
Lord to "search the Scriptures," would be but a^ 
solemn mockery. This topic will form the sub- 
ject of the next chapter. 

It is of the Utmost importance that we shoukt 
entertain correct views as to the proper province' 
of reason in the investigation of revealed truth. 
It is not the province of reason to determine 
before hand ^vhat the Bible, as a revelation froiU' 
6rod, ought to contain, but to ascertain w^hat it 
does contain ; not to decide in advance what the 
Scriptures oiight to mean, but to determine in^ 
the use of all legitimate and appropriate means,- 
what they do mean. Neither is it her province 
to sit in judgment on the truths revealed in the" 
Bible, and to admit or reject them according as^ 
they may or may not coincide with our pre-con- 
ceived opinions, or as they may or may not be 
comprehensible by us. She is not competent to- 
such a task. It would be transcending her pow- 
ers. It w^ould be an abuse, a perversion, a 
usurpation of reason. And to this abuse and 
tisurpation may be traced a vast multitude of 
ihe most dangerous errors and false doctrines' 



14 ISEL-E THREE GREAT LIGHTS. 

which have prevailed and do still infest the 
Church. The rationalism and neology prevalent 
rat the present day in some portions of the Chris- 
tian world are attributable to this cause. Uni- 
tarianism and Universalism are also measurably 
chargeable with this abuse. 

Keason is competent, however, to investigate 
the evidence both external and internal for the 
truth of Eevealed religion. She is competent to 
ascertain by the application of sound critical 
laws the genuine text .of Scripture. She is com- 
petent to determine amid the various interpret- 
ations of which a passage of Scripture is supposed 
to be capable, which is probably the true mean- 
ing. 

And this she is to do not arbitrarily and capri- 
^ciously or under the influence of an unrestrained 
imagination, or of prejudice, but by the applica- 
tion of the established laws of language and the 
-acknowledged principles and canons of inter- 
pretation; for these principles and canons are 
^lerely the deductions of reason, approved by 
"the common sense of mankind. Here for the 
most part her task ceases, and Faith steps in 
•with her mighty power to appropriate the living 
truths which Eeason has thus developed in the 
•'^word of God, and to accomplish in the individ- 
>ual soul the great moral .woi;k for .whkh >,the 
(Eevelation was. givep. 



TRADITION. 16 

CHAPTEE IV. 

TRADITION. — RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 

We have said that one of the two main pillars 
on which the superstructure of Protestantism 
rests is the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for all the 
purposes of the divine life in the soul of man, 
and its exclusive divine authority as the Rule of 
faith and the Law of life. The Romish Church, 
on the contrary, maintains, as appears from the 
acts of the Council of Trent, that ''the truth is 
contained in the written books, and in the unwritten 
traditions, which, having been received by the 
Apostles, either from the mouth of Christ him- 
self, or from the dictatesof the Holy Spirit, were 
handed down even to us," and that Church "re- 
ceives and venerates with equal feeling of piety 
and reverence all the books of the Old and New 
Testament, since one God was the author of them 
both, and also the tradition, relating as well io faith 
as to morals, as having, eitlier from the mouth of 
Christ himself, or from the dictation of the Holy 
Ghost, been preserved by continuous succession 
in the Catholic Church."^ Against this claim 

* A few words may be necessary in order to explain 
what is here meant by tradition. It properly denotes 
that information which Clirist and his inspired ser- 
vants communicated to men, which is not embodied 
in the Canonical Scriptures, but which, it is alleged^ 
was handed down by other means. The New Testa- 
ment is not a large book, and must be supposed to 
'Contain but a small part of what our Saviour and his 
Apostles said and taught. Several of the Apostles, 
.indeed, committed nothing to writingj.at least Motliin^ 



16 ^H ADDITION. 

of coordinate authority for a vagi]i=e, uncertain 
tradition with the written word of God, the 
Eeformers protested, and this constitutes one of 
the fundamental points of difference between 
the two great Communions into which the West- 
ern Church is divided. "In the books of the 

tliat we possess or of which we have any knowledge. 
Tradition, therefore, in the strict sense here intended,- 
is the entire body of those apostolical instructions and 
facts which have been transmitted otherwise than by 
writing, otherwise than by the New Testament, in» 
the state in which it has reached us. As the Jewish 
Eabbies- maintained that in addition to the vMtten 
law of Moses, there was also an umoritten traditional 
law, which had been handed down orally from the 
times of the Hebrew lawgiver, by which the written' 
law contained in the Canonical Books was to be inter- 
preted ; so the same thing is alleged in regard to 
many of the sayings and doings of Christ and his 
Apostles. This tradition is termed Oral, from having- 
been transmitted at first by Word of mouth from t^ne 
to another, but at length committed to writing, or said 
to have been so, by the Fathers, or Councils. *' The 
rule of faith in the Church of Kome," says Bishop J. 
H. Hopkins, "professes likeour own,to be the Word of 
God, and of course, it includes the Holy Scriptures. 
But they mainvain that besides the Scriptures, there 
1ras an oral delivery of divine truth to the Church 
which is equally obligatory on every believer; of 
which unwritten word, the Church is the sole deposi- 
tory, and in the safe preservation of which, as well as 
in her power of interpreting the written word, she can- 
Bot err, being absolutely infallible." " By the nnicrit-- 
^g7i Word of God," says Dr. Wiseman, **we mean a 
body of doctrines, which in consequence of express 
declarations in the written word, we believe not to* 
have been committed to writing, but delivered by 
Christ t€> his Apostles, and by the Apostles to their 



TRADITION. 17 

New Testament alone," says a late English wri- 
ter, "is to be found a trustworthy record of the 
life and conversation of Christ — of all [so far as 
we know] that he said and did — of his labors 
and sufferings, of his death and resurrection, — 
and of the efforts, happily the successful efforts 
of the apostles in diffusing far and wide the glad 
tidings of his Gospel. But having these, says 
the genuine Protestant, we have all tbat is need- 
ed. They are all-sufhcient for the purpose of 

successors. We believe that no new doctrine can be 
introduced into the Church, but that every doctrine 
which we hold has existed and been taught in it, ever 
since the time of the Apostles and was handed down 
by them to their successoi:s, under the guarantee of 
which we receive doctrines from the Church, that is, 
Christ's promise to abide with it forever, to assist, di- 
rect and instruct it, and always teach in and through 
it. So that while giving our explicit credit, and trust- 
ing our judgment to it, we are believing and trusting 
to the express teachinf!; of Christ himself,''^ Strictly 
speaking then, the oral Tradition here intended, is a 
traditional revelation concerning doctrine, in matters 
of faiih and morals, which is not to be found in Scrip- 
ture, and which is equally certain, equally divine, 
and equally to be embraced, and reverenced with 
Scripture itself. In point of fact, however, the Word 
is commonly taken in a wider sense and made to in- 
clude ecclesiastical tradition, i. e., Tradition concern- 
ing Church government, discipline, rites and ceremo- 
nies, and ^ermenat^ic«/ tradition, i. e,, certain doctrines 
handed down from early times, and certain interpre- 
tations of Scripture, which are found in the writings 
of the fathers. And it is in this wide sense that, ac- 
cording to the Romanists and Anglo- Catholics, Scrip- 
ture and Tradition taken together, are the joint rule 
of faith." 

2 



18 TRADITION. 

making us acquainted with the great truths of 
Christianity ; with the mind and character of 
Christ ; with the principles, the spirit and the 
genius of his religion. If we cannot learn from 
the New Testament all that is essential and ne- 
cessary to make a man wise unto salvation ; if 
from this source, we cannot derive an adequate 
knowledge of what Christ taught as most im- 
portant to be believed, then there are no au- 
thentic documents to which we can have re- 
course, and in which such knowledge is to-be 
found. If it exists anywhere, it exists in the 
writings of those who were his immediate fol- 
lowers and attendants. There, then, we shall 
seek it, and there we hope to find it." This is 
what the immortal Chillingworth meant when 
he said "The Bible, the Bible alone is the reli- 
gion of Protestants." This is what is intended 
by the sufficiency of Scripture. "In contending 
for that sufficiency, it is not meant that Scrip- 
ture alone should be read and studied, and that 
we throw aside every means, — that we should 
despise and reject every help, that might enable 
us more correctly to ascertain its meaning, and 
more fully to enter into its spirit. This would 
be a monstrous perversion, a most pernicious 
abuse of the maxim that ''the Bible only is the 
religion of Protestants." All that is to be un- 
derstood by it is, that no other work carries with 
it the same title to our regard and submission, 
and that when once its principles are clearly as- 
certained, they furnish the only authoritative 
rule*. for Christian faith and practice ; that no 
• other writings, of whatever age or country they 
miay be, can be allowed to come into competi- 
tion with them, — to qualify their statements or 



RIGHT Of PRIVVLTE JUDGMENT. (19 

to supercede their authority ; that on every 
-question where they speak positively and expli> 
^oitly, their decision is paramount and final; and 
ithat no opinion or practice, unsanctioned by 
ithem, is to be- received as a necessary and essen- 
tial part of the* Christian scheme." 

This view of the suffieienGy of scripture is 
lield universally by all who claim to be Protes- 
vtant Christians. The only exception, if it may 
be called an exception, are a few English Trae- 
larians, most of whom, hoi^/ever, have followed 
out their principles not only to their logical but 
their practical results, and apostatising from the 
'Church, whose faith they had denied, have gone 
-to Eome. It is unnecessary, therefore,, to dwell. 
longer upon this topic. 

The second of the two main pillars on which 
,the su])erstructure of Protestantism rests is the 
right of private judgment in the interpretation of Scrip- 
lure. This right is denied by the Romish hierar- 
chy,, which claims either for its representatives 
assembled in council, or for its ecclesiastical 
head, the Bishop of Rome, or for both concur- 
lently, an infallible judgment, and an exclu- 
sive authority to determine for the faithful the 
meaning of Scripture. The Protestant Church, 
however, utterly repudiates the idea that infal- 
libility belongs to any individual man, or body 
of men — to the Pope or any ecclesiastical coun- 
cil whatever. This claim is regarded as a mon- 
strous and arrogant assumption, w^hoUy incapa- 
ble of proof, and actually disproved by the con- 
tradictory decisions both of Popes and Councils. 
But while all Protestants agree >n rejecting the 
.Eomish dogma of infallibility, and the coordi- 
.nate authority of .tradition, there are some who 



2b TK^ RIGHT OF 

virtually dfeny the right of private judgment itt^ 
the interpretation of Scripture itself by ascribing: 
to the writings of the primitire fathers a judi- 
cial authority in determining its meaning. It 
must be evident to all that this is a vital point,^ 
which requires serious and attentive examina- 
tion. For if men may not rightfully exercise 
their private or individual judgment in investi- 
gating the meaning of scripture itself^ then it is 
entirely a wori^ of supererogation, both useless 
and irreverent to invoke the aid of reason and 
prescribe laws and rules for' the interpretation 
of the Bible. Then may the science of biblical 
hermeneutics be reduced to a very narrow com- 
pass, and the whole be comprised in this one sim- 
ple law — "Follow your leader,, right or wrong." 
We are told by the advocates of Eomish in- 
fallibility, that it is a very desirable thing, that 
there should be some authoritative umpire 
supernaturally qualified to distinguish with- 
infallible certainty between truth arid error;- 
and that it is incredible that the Deity, in- 
granting a revelation, should have left its mean- 
ing to be ascertained by so weak and erring a 
tribunal as private judgment. Admitting the 
desirableness of such an infallible umpire and 
arbiter in the interpretation of scripture, does 
this establish the fact that such a judge has been 
actually appointed by the Peity ?• If it can be 
shown that any one man, or that any body of 
men are gifted with infallibility, — that the judg- 
ment, in any case pronounced by him or them 
must be right, then, to be sure, there is no pre- 
sumption in reqAiiring me to yield' unhesitating- 
ly to his or their decisions. But that, since- 
ihQ time of Christ and his apostles^ such a pro- 



PRrlVATE JUDGMENT. 2|i 

•perty=bas been lodged in any one individual or 
^number of individuals, there is not an atom of 
'-evidence to prove. On the supposition of such 
an appointment by the Deity, is it not reasonable 
to expect that He yrould have told us explicitly 
and unmistakeably in his v/or-d, where that infal- 
lible judgment and judicial authority reside?— 
whetlier in the Pope exclusively, or in a general 
council exclusively, or in the Pope and Council 
€onjointly? This is a question certainly of vast 
moment v/hich the €hurck of Rome has never 
yet been able to settle. 

It is indeed true, that human reason is fallible, 
and, consequently, that the decisions founded 
ypon it may be, and in point of fact, often are 
erroneous. It is true, that sincere and intelli- 
gent 'Christians have been led in the exercise 
of their rational faculties to the most opposite 
conclusions, and have claimed with equal confi- 
dence and pertinacity, the authority of Scripture 
for their conflicting opinions and systems^ It is 
true, that the right of private judgment may 
rhe abused, as may other inherent rights which 
men possess, and that its exercise involves great 
responsibility. But what warrant does all this 
afford for the conclusion that there must be 
some unquestionable umpire, from whose deci- 
sions in matters of religion there.can be no ap- 
peal? Before such an idea can be. seriously en- 
tertained, it must be shown that in granting a 
revelation the Deity designed to ^preclude the 
possibility of dispute and disagreement as to its 
meaning, and to secure beyond the possibility 
of failure perfect unanimity of opinion. But as 
-diversity of opinion can be prevented only by 
^king away the liberty of individual judgmect, 



22 THE RIGHT 0¥ 

it must be further shown, that He also designed to> 
deprive men of this freedom, and to compel thems 
to take their religious opinions upon trust, and> 
with implicit submission to the decisions of some- 
recognized arbiter and dictator. But most cer- 
tainly it is impossible for us to determine what* 
the Deity intended to do in this regard, except 
from what he has actually done. Entire unan- 
imity, howevver, has neyer yet been attained 
even among.those who recognize a self constitu- 
ted infallibl-e interpreter and jifldge. We are 
therefore authorized to conclude, that it never 
was the intenticm o-f the Deity to prevent the in- 
cidental evils arising from a diversity of opin- 
ions by means ^f a human infallible giaide. 

The human Uiiiderstanding is so constituted 
that it cannotf be ccmj^elled to the belief of 
anything by external force. Siach force may 
make hypocrites, but. oannot^ produce convic- 
tion. Hence all attempts to coerce men into 
the belief of certain dogmas have proved a* 
failure. Wherever coercive measures have been 
resorted to, the res'jilt has invariably disap- 
pointed the expectations of its employers. The- 
case of Galileo is here in? point. Witness also- 
Luther and the other Continental as well as- 
English reformers andimartyrs — the English Pu- 
ritans — the Early Christians, of whom it was 
truly said,, ^'the blood- of the martyrs is the seed' 
of the Church/' The attempt to coerce men 
into a unity of belief, or even into a uniformity 
in respect to external ceremonials, so far from 
accomplishing the object sought after, has led to 
the principal divisions into sects and separate 
ecclesiastical organizations, which unhappily ex- 
ist in the Church. And if entire unanimity of 



PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 23 

opinion in regard to material points of Christian 
doctrine, and even in regard to immaterial points 
of ceremonial and ritual observances never has 
been, and never can be effected by coercion, or by- 
requiring implicit submission to an authoritative 
arbiter, whose right to control opinion is unac- 
knowledged, how can we expect entire harmony 
and agreement in the interpretation of the whole 
volume of inspired truth by any such means ? 
The idea is utterly preposterous, and even the 
infallible Bishop of Rome has never acted so 
absurdly as to attempt the accomplishment of 
such an impossibility ; but allows in his paternal 
clemency the exercise of individual judgment 
and the use of our rational faculties in relation 
to such doctrines and passages of Scripture, as 
he has not authoritatively pronounced an infal- 
lible judgment upon. 

Again : the fundamental verities of all religi- 
ons rest necessarily and purely on the exercise 
of reason and consciousness. On no other ground 
can we believe even in the existence of a God, 
w^iich must first be established before the idea 
of a Divine revelation can be seriously enter- 
tained. The free exercise of the reason and 
judgment in the intrepretation of Scripture, 
moreover, cannot be superceded without destroy- 
ing human responsibility. For if there were an 
infallible preservative against error, a right be- 
lief could not be a matter of choice, just as if 
there were an irresistable safeguard against vice, 
obedience could not be a virtue. But in the 'di- 
vine government men are treated as free-agents 
and made responsible for their opinions as well 
as for their conduct. It is true that in the ex- 
ercise of their freedom they may err, and there- 



24 THE RIGHT OF 

by involve themselves in ruin : but liability to 
error is inseparable from a state of probation : 
and consequently an infallible guide in matters 
of faith and practice, would be incompatible 
with the exercise of a rational faith, and with a 
moral submission to the divine laws. Finally : 
the denial of the exercise of the right of private 
judgment in the concerns of religion is incom- 
patible with the intellectual advancement of the 
human race. And accordingly it has ever been 
the settled policy of those who deny this right 
to shut out from the mass of mankind the sour 
ces of knowledge and to deprive them even of 
the Scriptures in the vernacular language except 
in peculiar cases and under stringent restrictions. 
This right is also fully recognized in the Scriptures 
themselves. Though our Saviour and his apos- 
tles were infallible, they never insist on their 
own infallibility as a reason for compelling men's 
faith. On the contrary, they uniformly address 
mankind as intelligent creatures, and invite 
them to examine and then judge of the truth 
of what they propound. 

But it is said, all men are not competent to 
judge of the meaning of Scripture. On the one 
hand, there is so much of the Bible which is 
deep and mysterious, so much that is dark and 
intricate and hidden from common observation, 
as to render its interpretation extremely diffi- 
cult even to the well-inibrmed ; and, on the other 
hand, many, from their education and the cir- 
cumstances of their lives — from being altogether 
unaccustomed to think and reflect, are wholly 
disqualified for coming to a sound conclusion 
upon the various questions pertaining to religi- 
on. Hence it is proper, if not absolutely neces- 



PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 25 

«ary that there should be some reliable guide — 
some fixed and certain standard by which the 
true doctrine and the true interpretation of 
Scripture should be distinguished from the false 
and erroneous. 

In reply to this it may be observed that right, 
and ability properly to use the right, are very 
different things, and must not be confounded 
with one another. The one is not necessarily 
and in point of fact is not actually, the accom- 
paniment of the other. A man may possess the 
right to do, what he is ill qualified for doing 
wisely and beneficially. *'You may have the 
right to choose your physician, your lawyer, 
your engineer, and it is niiportant that you 
should choose well ; and yet, from the circum- 
stances in which you are placed, you may not be 
very competent to makeagood choice. In such 
a case we cannot say, it does not belong to you 
to determine the matter. That is left to another 
who will do this for you, and to his decisions you 
must unhesitatingly bow. Vie could not ad- 
dress to any one language like this; but we 
might reasonably and becomingly say to him; 
before you come to a decision upon a matter of 
such great importance, take care that you have 
qualified yourself to judge rightly. Avail your- 
self of the knovv'ledge and experience of others. 
Learn from them the facts which will give you 
the means of coming to a sound and satisfactory 
conclusion. The power, the right of deciding 
is unquestionably yours. That we do not deny. 
You may choose whom you please. All we say 
is, see to it that you render yourself competent 
and qualified to choose well. Such advice, such 
r>ecommendation as this would be reasonable and 



26 THE KIGHT OF 

proper. And if this were all that is meant by- 
questioning the right of private judgment on 
the subject of religion ; if it were only intended 
to check presumption, to curb rashness, to pre- 
vent haste, to make men cautious and careful 
in their inquiries, willing to receive instruction 
and anxious to avail themselves of all the light 
which the labors and learning of others might 
throw upon the subject, there would be little or 
nothing to object to." (Madge.) No intelligent 
advocate for the right of private judgment ever 
claimed that men should willfully disregard all 
assistance from others, and proudly rely on their 
own superior discernment alone in the investi- 
gation of the Scriptures. And those who may 
have pursued this course in their inquiries, have 
been guilty of great rashness and- presumption. 
On the contrary they should avail themselves 
gladly of all the lights of former ages and a?! 
the lights of the present age within their reach. 
•'No person," says Dr. J. Pye Smith, "is compe- 
tent to ex-cogitate for himself a religion out of 
the Bible, or out of any other book, without the 
assistance of all those various means, which in 
the Bible, as in every other book, are indispen- 
sible to his reading, understanding, feelings 
analysing and judging of its multifarious con- 
tents. Our appeal should be to the Bible, with 
everi/ note cv^d comment from every quarter ; from 
all those legitimate and necessary helps which 
are supplied by grammatical^ critical, historical, 
moral and spiritual considerations, and which 
regulate our interpretation of every other book." 
There is unquestionably a duty as well as a right 
involved in the exercise of this privilege of 
judging for ourselves. In contending for the 



PRIVATE JUDaMFNT. 27 

right we must not overlook or forget the duty. 
The duty is to see that we are competent to judge- 
respecting the questions that come before us ; 
that we are duly qualified, both intellectuallyr 
and morally, for forming ant opinion on the mat- 
ter under consideration. Dfc would; then be fels 
that there is a. right and a wrong u&e of the fac- 
ulties of the intellect as well as of the body ; 
and that we are answerable, not indeed to man., 
but to Gud, for the principles we adopt. ''The 
question," says Archbishop Whotely, "when 
plainly stated-, is not whether men should follow 
the guidance of inclinatiomaaid fancy ; nor, again? 
whether they should reject? all human teaching,, 
and refuse all assistance in their inquiries after 
religious triiih; but, supposing a man willing to 
avail himseM" of all helps wdthin his reach and* 
to divest hifaself of all prejudice, is he ultimate- 
ly to decide according to the best of his own 
judgment, and embrace what appears to him to 
be truth ? or, is he tO' forego- the exercise of his 
own judgment, and receive implicitly what is- 
decided. lor him by the authority of the Church,, 
laboring to stifle any difterent conviction that . 
may present itself to his mind." "We are, al> 
of us," says Madge, "a good deal dependent upon 
one another ; we are, all of us, obliged to take 
much upon trust. This is the case not only with- 
men of little learning and little information, but 
with men well accomplished in both these re- 
spects. Take as an example the case of two or 
three men of difi:erent talents and attainments 
inquiring into the evidences of the Christian re- 
ligion. The first, we will say, is a scholar and; 
well read in all the branches of Christian litera- 
ture. The second is one who, though not abla- 



28 THE RiGHT OF 

to read the "New Testament in the original or 
the works of the Greek and Latin fathers, has 
still leisure and opportunity for reading suejk 
ti'anslations as have been made of them, or sucla 
^writings as contain the best and fullest informa- 
tion concerning them. The third is possessed af 
plain good sen^e, but has little or no time foa* 
reading works of any considerable extent, and 
derives therefore most of his knowledge on tlie 
subject from those who are able to give him,, 
in a small compass, the result of their read- 
ing. Now each of these gets hold of the same 
facts, though in different [ways; and, possess- 
ing these facts, the one may be as competent 
to draw from them the just inference as the 
other. The first will say that, from his owbl 
personal examination, he knows that the books 
.of the New Testament existed in their present 
form at a very early period of the Christian era^, 
■ras is testified by the large quotations made from 
them in the works of the first Christian fathers, 
and which have come under his observation. 
The second will say that he also has ascertained 
.the same fact, not indeed from a perusal of the an- 
cient authors themselves, but from the account 
given of them in the works of Lardner, Less, 
Paley and others in whose representations he 
-places the most entire confidence. Then comes 
the third, and he tells us that he has learnt this 
fact, neither from the Fathers themselves, nor 
from the writings of those by whom the Fathers 
:are largely quoted, but from the verbal testimo- 
ny or assurance of those who did thus obtain 
their knowledge, and on the truth and integrity 
of whose statements he firmly relies. N.ow, in 
'these cases, it might perhaps be said, that the 



lastper!50"tt, the poor unlettered man, is altogether 
disqualifieel for drawing any argument in favor 
of the authenticity of the New Testament from* 
the fact in question, because he has not been 
able to obtain a knowledge of it by means of 
his own personal examination of the authorities 
^u ^vhich he depends. Tathis I answer thatr 
availing himself as he may of the labors and 
learning of others for the desired information,, 
he then becomes (unless there are other disqual- 
ifications to hinder him) quite as competent ta 
reason from the fact thus made known to him^ 
as the other two that have been mentioned,^ 
though without their aid and apart from their 
testimony no such competency would be pos- 
sessed by him. It is certainly true that on the 
subject of religion, — on matters connected with 
the interpretation of the New Testament, — there- 
is much concerning which many persons, from; 
their situation and circumstances, from their 
state and condition intellectually and morally 
considered, are not very -well qualified to forma 
correct judgment. If they think about them at 
all, their thoughts will probably be very crude 
and ill-digested; and hence perhaps we shall be 
told that they, more especially, stand in need of 
guidance and direction. Undoubtedly they do; 
but instead of saying to them, you have no right 
to look into these matters, you have no right to- 
inquire and to judge of such things, you must 
look up to us, and take our opinions as the rule 
and measure of your owm, the wiser course would 
be to say, The great essential points of Christian 
belief, all that it is most necessary and impor- 
tant for you to know, are so clearly and explic- 
itly and emphatically taught in the Scripture of 



M PATRISTICAl. ArUTHORITY 

^he New Testament, that all may understand 
them from the least to the greatest. 'Secret things 
belong unto the JLord, but those which are re- 
vealed belong vunto us and to our children; 
Upon these let your thoughts be chiefly exer- 
seised ; thay will instruct you in the one thing 
needful; they will make you wise*unto salvation ; 
and if you are desirous of extending your in- 
quiries beyond these, — if you ^are anxious to be- 
come acquainted not only with the leading prin- 
iciples, the object, the purpose, the spirit of 
'Christianity, but with the letter of the New Tes- 
tament, with the exact 'iBeaningof all its various 
contents, argumentative as well as didactic, con- 
troversial as well as historical, obscure as well 
as plain, — remember that, for this purpose, cer- 
tain qualifications are absolutely necessary, and 
dhat without these you .will only trouble and 
iPerplex yourselves in vain."* 



CHAPTER V. 
^ATRISTICAL AUOIHORITY IN INTERPRETATION. 

It is the doctrine ^of the Romanists that the 
Church, (by which they mean of course the 
Church of Rome, or rather the Hierarchy of that 
•Church,) is the infallible judge and interpreter 
»of Holy Scripture, on the ground that she is the 

* Le.ctureis jon .Puseyism. 



IN INTERPRETATION. 31 

only authority which represents Christ upon 
earth, and that ever possessing his mind andsu- 
pernaturally guided by his Spirit, she cannot 
possibly err m her doctrinal decisions. This, as 
we have seen, is utterly denied by the Reformed 
Church. Some Protestant divines, however, 
distinguished for their learning and piety, who 
have no faith in the paramount or co-ordinate 
authority of oral tradition, and repudiate the 
papal claim to infallibility, do, notwithstanding, 
virtually deny or greatly circumscribe the right 
of private judgment in the interpretation of the 
Bible, by according to the early Church fathers 
an authority incompatible with the exercise of 
that right. They shift the ground of authorita- 
tive interpretation from the Church in all ages 
or the Pope its spiritual head anol representa- 
tive, to the priiaiitive Church as represented 
by the fathers and early councils. Thus we 
are told that "the Scriptures are the Eule of 
Faith according to the primitive catholic inter- 
pretation, with the right of private judgyncrd to de- 
cide what that interpretation vjas'' The Scriptures 
are represented as the laiv^ and the early fathers 
as the judges and interpreters of that law, w'hose 
concurrent decisions we are implicitly to follow. 
•^'As judges and interpreters of the -written word 
•of God, they {i. e. the ancient fathers) have our 
absolute confidence, whenever they are unani- 
mous. But \vhere they are not unanimous, we 
are compelled to do as they did; compare their 
discordant sentiments with Scripture, and adopt 
that sense, which seems most conformable to 
the language of inspiration." Again : '' there is a 
part of the English law^ although it is not ex- 
pressed in the [thirty-nine] articles [of the Church 



32 PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY 

of England], and has no formal recognition in 
the system of the; American [Episcopal] Church, 
which I consider important to a perfect under- 
standing of our doctrine concerning the Eule of 
Faith ; and this is the provision that the Scrip- 
tures should be expounded according to the 
sense of the ancient fathers." 

If this is the doctrine of the English Church 
it is extraordinary that it should have found no 
place in the Articles of that Church, many of 
which relate to points of far less consequence 
than this. Besides, why did not the Anglican 
Keformers append to their admirable transla- 
tion of the Scriptures a catena of patristical in- 
terpretation, as the Komanists have done, so that 
the clergy as well as the unlearned reader might 
be enabled in every instance to put the author- 
itative interpretation upon them, and not by fur- 
nishing them with the naked text, leave them 
to exercise presumptuously their own private 
judgment in regard to cases already adjudicat- 
ed ? Or, why did they not at least cause the 
writings of the fathers to be translated into the 
English language and circulated among the peo- 
ple, in order that they might have the true key 
with which to unlock the treasures of the Bible? 
Even Mr. Newman saw clearly the propriety of 
this course, and he and his co-adjutors among 
the Oxford Tractarians undertook to supply this 
defect. Eemarking on the tenacity with which 
Christians of the present age maintain the no- 
tion, that they are inadequate judges of tradi- 
tion, he follows it up by saying, "It does seem a 
reason for putting before them, if possible, the 
principal works of the Fathers, translated as 
Scripture is, that they may have by them, what^ . 



IN INTERPRETATION. 33 

whether used or not, will at least act as a check 
upon the growth of an undue dependence on 
the word of individual teachers, and will be 
something to consult, if they have reason to 
loubt the catholic character of any tenet to 
,vhich they are invited to accede." It would 
^eem, then, according to the views here present- 
ed, that although we may read the Scriptures, we 
may not inteiyret them in the exercise of our ra- 
tional faculties, as we do any other book; but 
must iirst go to the early church fathers and as- 
certain what interpretation they put upon the 
t^acred volume. That interpretation, as far as it 
goes, w^e are implicitly to receive and adopt as 
conclusive, whether it accords w^ith reason and 
common sense or not. It is true, that, where 
the fathers are not unanimous, w^e are allowed 
to do as they did. And what did they do ? They 
studied the Scriptures for themselveSv And 
why may we not do the same thing, as well in 
regard to points on w^hich they have expressed 
an opinion, as in reference to those upon which 
they are silent ? The very fact that they have 
advanced discordant opinions conclusively proves 
that they were not infallible, and not always re- 
liable. Truly this studying of the Scriptures 
through the writings of the fathers, instead of 
going directly to the fountain head, is a most 
recondite and circuitous, as well as unsatisfac- 
tory way of coming at their meaning. 

But who are the primitive or ancient fathers, 
whose authority is decisive as to the meaning of 
Scripture? Does the term embrace the writers 
oi' the first two centuries only or of the first 
three ? Or does it comprehend also those of the 
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries? Are Irenreus 
3 



34 FATRISTICAL AUTHORITY ' 

and Tertullian the latest writers who are enti- 
tled to this enviable distinction ? Or are we to 
include Augustine and Jerome in the number ? 
This is a point of very considerable importance, 
and yet it is one by no means settled among the 
advocates of patristical authority. By some 
much is said about Nicene Christianity, the Ni- 
cene Church and the Nicene Creed. These have 
been lauded to the skies as perfect, comprehend- 
ing all Divine truth, and presenting nothing but 
apostolic truth. With such, doubtless, the au- 
thority of the Nicene or ante-Nicene fathers, as 
interpreters of Scripture, is decisive and unques- 
tionable. Suppose, then, we restrict the term 
to these, who are the men, we may ask, that 
must be recognized as authoritative interpreters 
of the Word of God? In addition to the soi 
disant apostolic fathers, who are not of much ac- 
count in reference to the matter under consider- 
ation, there are Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex- 
andria, Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen. 
' N'ow on what ground are the interpretations of 
these men to be implicitly followed by us ? It 
must be either on the ground of their posses- 
sing superior literary qualifications for such a 
work, or on the ground of their proximity to 
the apostolic age, or on both. 

What then were the personal qualifications 
and literary attainments of these men ? No 
one claims that they were generally eminent bibli- 
cal scholars. The works of most of them which 
have come down to our times are apologetic 
rather than exegetical. Where they belong to 
the latter class of writings, they are open to 
most weighty objection on account of the erro- 
neous principles of interpretation which pervade 



IN INTERPRETATION. 35 

them. Some of them carried the allegorical and 
mystical system to a most unwarrantable, extra- 
vagant and even ridiculous extent. At the 
head of Biblical interpreters durkig this period 
stands Origen. Possessed of great genius, ex- 
tensive erudition, .^imazing industry and vast 
powers of memor5', he holds the most conspicu- 
ous place among the Christian writers of the 
ante-Nicene age. But he j^^ushed the allegorical 
jnode of interpretation to a far greater and more 
dangerous extent than any of his predecessors. 
To the Scriptures he ascribed a three-fold sense, 
viz. : the literal or grammatical, the moral, and 
the spiritual or mystical. To the first of these 
he attached very little value ; but regarded the 
hidden or mystical sense as the only one worthy 
of regard. None but the most*wild and vision- 
ary of the present day would regard him as a 
safe and judicious expositor of the sacred vol- 
ume. Swedenborgians might adopt him as a 
guide, but not any one who places common sense 
above fancies and dreams. 

But it is alleged that the ante-Nicene fathers 
possessed the advantages of having lived very 
near the age of the Saviour and his apostles, and 
on this account alone are entitled to implicit 
confidence. To their writings the legal maxim 
is applied. Contemporaneous mterpretation is the 
best interpretation. This principle is doubtless 
a sound one in reference to Biblical as well 
as secular writings. But the rule is not applica- 
ble to any great extent to the writers in ques- 
tion. They did not live near enough to the 
times and scenes of the apostolic ministry to im- 
part to their interpretations the character of 
geauine and uacorrupted apostolic traditioju. 



i»b PATRISTICAL AUTHORltY 

The rule applies in their case only to genera! 

loctrines and facts, and not to particular inter- 

)retations of Scripture, and therefore cannot 
supercede a personal examination and an inde- 

>endent judgment of Scripture for ourselves. 

testimony may be early and yet not contempo- 
raneous. We should hardly affirm of two indi- 
viduals who lived 02ie or two hundred years 
apart that they were contemporay and that the 
latter was fully competent to tell us what inter- 
]>retation the former put upon this or that pas- 
sage of Scripture in the absence of all documen- 
tary evidence to that effect. The fact that a 
Christian father of the third century has put 
a certain construction ii^Don a passage of Scrip- 
ture would certainly be very inadequate testi- 
mony to prove that the Apostles of the first 
century put the same construction upon it. The 
Constitution of the United States has been in 
existence scarcely three-fourths of a century; 
and yet, notwithstanding all the light thrown 
upon that instrument from the well-known pri- 
vate opinions of its framers, the statesmen of 
our age have already begun to dispute about iis 
meaning. Eut few of the arite-Nicene fathers 
lived soon after the death of the Apostles, and 
their writings are of no special value as interpre- 
tations of Scripture. Clement of Rome, Igna- 
tius and Polycarp are all. Still the testimony of 
the others is comparatively early, and would b^- 
entitled to our respect on this ground provided 
of/ier things loere equal. But other things are not 
f qual. They did not possess other requisite quali- 
fications. Several of those wdio lived at a much 
later period, (e. g. Chrysostom, Augustine and 
Jerome,) are entitled from their superior learn- 



IN INTERPRETATION. 37 

-:iig and sounder judgment to much greater re- 
spect and deference, than are any of those who 
previously flourished and wrote. 

Are the ante-Nicene fathers then, it may he 
asked, of no value ? Most certainly they are of 
value ; but this is not the question under con- 
sideration. They are of some value as interpre- 
ters of Scripture; but of much greater impor- 
tance as credible witnesses of faots which came- 
under their observation. X man may be per- 
fectly competent to testify to a fact, and at the 
same time very incompetent to expound an an- 
cient document. The testimony of the primi- 
tive fathers is highly important, no doubt, in 
reference to the canon of Scripture, the polity, 
rites and ceremonies of the Church., and her re- 
ceived and traditional doctrines. The following 
examples will illustrate our meaning. I tak(^ 
up the New Testament, and by a careful and 
critical examination of its contents, I come to 
che conclusion that the Divinity of Christ i;^ 
most clearly taught therein. T find divine names 
oestowed upon him, divine attributes ascribed 
to him, divine works attributed to him and di- 
vine honors paid to him. T am compelled there- 
fore to believe that sjach is the doctrine of thai 
inspired book. But this doctrine by some is 
denied on th^ ground that such is not the teach- 
ing of this boot Now to satisfy- myself more 
fully that I have read and interpreted the pasr- 
«ages bearing on this point rightly, I turn to the 
history of the early church and its doctrines a£ 
these are developed in the writings of the fa- 
thers of the first three centuries and other au- 
thentic documents, and I find that, with few ex- 
<jeptious, the doctrine of Christ's divinity wa^ 



38 FATRTSTICAL AUTHORITY 

jheld as a ftTndan>ental truth by the whole cliurchv 
and that the lew who denied it were regarded 
as heretical. This corroborative testimony from 
the universal belief of the early church affords 
^he most satisfactory confirmation of the correct- 
ness of my interpretation. 

Again : 1 read the historical account of the 
institution of the luord's Supper in the Gospels, 
and also the command of the Saviour to his 
apostles to baptize all nations, and am led by a 
sound grammatical exegesis to the concl usion that 
these ordinances were designed by the Saviour 
to be perpetuated in his Church to the end of 
time. I then turn to the inspired records of the 
J^postolic Church as contained in the Acts of the 
Apostles and their Epistles, and am confirmed 
in the opinion that I have interpreted the words 
of Christ correctly. But a sect has sprung up 
which denies that such w^as the intention of the 
Saviour. I, then, in order to render assurance 
doubly sure, recur to the uninspired but authen- 
tic writings of the early fathers and their testi- 
mony and above ali their practice puts the fact 
beyond a peradventure, for it is a sound princi- 
ple universally admitted that the early usage 
under a law is the best interpretation of that law. 

One more: I find our Saviour, on one oc- 
casion, washing his disciples' feet in order to in- 
culcate in the most impressive manner the 
Christian duty of humility and condescension. 
But I am not sure whether this ceremony was 
intended by our Saviour to be continued in his 
Church, and was so understood by his disciples 
or not. Some maintain that it was so intended. 
To satisfy myself on this point I examine the 
sem.ains of Christian antiquity and find that th^ 



IN INTERPRETATION. 3^ 

<^arly Christians practiced no such rite. The in- 
ference to my mind is irresistable, that our Sa- 
viour was not understood by his disciples to im- 
pose the perpetual obligation of such observance 
on his Church. Thus we see that the -writings of 
the early fathers are of great value historically^ 
and furnish much information and light to the 
student. Tn this point of view, no doiibt, more 
•deference was paid to them by the Church of 
England at the Reformation, than by the Conti- 
nental Reformers. But hermeneutically they have 
no special claim to our regard or attention. 

Our remarks thus far have been <!onfined 
to the ante-Nicene fathers. Suppose now we 
-extend our views somewhat beyond the ante- 
Nicene fathers, and take in those of the 4th, 5th 
and 6th centuries, w^e still fail to find what is 
<».laimed, — an authoritative exposition of Scrip- 
ture, which in any sense supercedes the right 
and duty of exercising our own deliberate 
judgment in the investigation of tlie sacred vol- 
ume. In regard to literary appliances and qual- 
ifications for the work of scriptural interpretation 
they were for the most part in far less favorable 
circumstances than are the Biblical interpreters 
of the present day. With only one exception 
f(Jerome) they were entirely unacquainted even 
^itli the language in which the Old Testament 
was written, and were consequently obliged to 
Tely on imperfect and in many instances inaccu- 
Tate translations of it. They had never studied 
the principles of interpretation, and adopted 
such as are now universally admitted to have 
been unsound and derogatory to the Scriptures 
themselves. Their expositions are frequently 
*o childish, and absurd tiat we may well wonder 



40 PATRI8TICAL AUTHORITY 

how sober-minded men could have entertained 
them, and still more that the authors of them 
should be held up not only as the best, but as 
authoritative and nearly if not quite infallible 
guides and lights in the investigation of Scrip- 
ture truth. 

The doctrine that the Scriptures are to be un- 
derstood according to the interpretation of the 
Christian fathers must proceed on the assump- 
tion that the Scriptures on the one hand, are so 
written as to be unintellifrible in themselves, and 
on the other, that the writings of the fathers 
are clear and luminous. But such an assump- 
tion is without foundation. The Bible, notwith- 
standing its many difficulties, is a considerabh'" 
more intelligible book than the works of the fa- 
thers ; and the latter often stand much more tin 
need of comment and elucidation than the for- 
mer. The writings in question are frequently 
so obscure and unintelligible as to perplex and 
confound the most careful and discerning rea- 
der. "L-et the Scriptures," says Milton, ''be hard; 
are they more hiard, more crabbed, more abstruse 
than the fathers? He that cannot understand 
the sober, plain and unaffected style of the 
Scriptures, will be ten times more puzzled with 
the knotty Africanisms, the pampered rneta- 
phors, the intricate and involved sentences of 
the fathers." 

Again: The expository writings of the fa- 
thers of the first six centuries cover only 
a comparatively small portion of the Sacred 
Volume. On some parts of the New Testament 
they are somewhat copious and valuable, especi- 
ally those of Chrysostom ; but on the Old they 
are very meagre, and with the exception of Jte- 



IN INTERPRETATION. 41 

rome, of little value. If we rely, therefore, upon 
them to enlighten us in regard to the true mean- 
ing of the Bible, we shall find ourselves in five 
cases out of six without a guide, and be com- 
pelled to pursue our way in the best manner 
we can in the exercise of our rational faculties. 

The works of these writers also are so-volu- 
minous that but few could ever reod them tho- 
roughly, even if tliey were translated. It occu- 
pied Archbishop Usher 18 or 19 years of his life 
to read them through, although he read a por- 
tion of them every day. Besides, these exposi- 
tors of the Word of God are far from being 
agreed in their interpretations. Many of their 
expositions are contradictory and irreconcilable 
to such an extent as to lead Chillingworth to re 
mark, ''there are fathers against fathers, and fa 
thers against themselves : a consent of father: 
of one age against a consent of fathers of an- 
other age." IIow, then, amid such conflicting 
opinions is the student to decide ? Must he or 
must he not fall back on his own reason and 
judgment, however fallible they may be, to help 
him out of the labyrinth ? 

There is no evidence that the fathers either 
of the ante-Xicene or of the post-Nicene church 
claimed for their opinions any such authority 
and deference as are accorded to them by some. 
And if they had, there is abundant evidence 
that the validity of such a claim would not have 
been allowed by the Church. Their opinions in 
many instances, were rejected by the Church as 
heretical and unscriptural. Origen who was the 
ablest and most learned among the early writers 
was anathematised by the 2d council of Constan- 
tinople. TertuUian was grossly heretical during 



42 PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY 

a portion of his life, and Lactanius was also 
charged with heresy. 

Some writers more moderate than the rest, 
claim for the fathers not authority to envnciate 
doctrine, but simply to test it. To their inter- 
pretations of Scripture we must bring ours ; and 
if we do not find ourselves in conflict with them 
we are at liberty to hold what we have excogita- 
ted. And where they have expressed no opin- 
ion we are at liberty to interpret for ourselves. 
But a test is of little value unless it be absolute- 
ly certain. A chemist's tests are unerring and 
therefore infallible. If they were not, they 
would be discarded by science as useless. A 
test, moreover, must be complete in itself It 
must not admit of appeal to other tests more 
complete or more certain, but must decide the 
point to which it is applied. Now to concede 
such a testing power or authority to the fathers 
is in reality to concede everything, 'j'o grant a 
testing power, is to grant a judging power, from 
which there can be no appeal. In all cases, there- 
fore, in which they have given any decision, 
they are, according to this view, judges — supreme 
judges and consequently, infallible judges. 

But it is alleged that we are bound to listen to 
the voice of the Church : — the fathers are the 
representatives of the Church in their different 
ages and the proper exponents of its teaching; 
consequently we are bound to yield implicit 
assent to their interpretations of Scripture. If 
the truth of the major premise in this syllogism 
be admitted, it does not follow that the minor is 
true; and if the minor be not proved, the con- 
clusion falls to the ground. But we apprehend 
it would be difficult to establish the truth of the 



IN INTERPRETATION. 43 

minor proposition. The Christian fathers whose 
writings have come down to our times, represent 
indeed the opinions of a certain number in their 
day, just as Pr. Pusey or Bishop Mcllvaine rep- 
resents those of a certain class in ours, or as 
Jeremy Taylor or Jonathan Edwards represent- 
ed those of another class in a former age; and 
that is all. But to call Origen o^ Ambrose or 
Augustine the voice of the universal Church, is 
an assertion the truth of which cannot be sub- 
stantiated. Doubtless the circle of their influ- 
ence was great, but it was far from being univer- 
sal. The vast tomes of the fathers embody, be- 
yond dispute, much truth, much eloq,uence and 
much genius, and are therefore entitled to re- 
spect; but we are under no obligation to bow 
implicitly to their dogmatic or their exegetical 
theology. 

If, indeed, it could be shown, that they lived 
for the most part so ver}^ near the apostolic age, 
as to render it improbable that they could have 
been unacquainted with the meaning which our 
Saviour and his apostles attached to their own 
language; if it could be shown that they pos- 
sessed the requisite literary qualifications for 
explaining the scriptures in a satisfactory man- 
ner: — that they always expressed their own 
views with clearness and perspicuity, so as to 
render their meaning unmistakeable:-that their 
exegetical writings cover the whole or nearly 
the whole ground of Scripture: — that they are 
embraced within a reasonable compass, so as not 
to require years of laborious study to plod 
through them: — that the writers were generally 
agreed in the exposition of the sacred volume 
and of Christian doctrines: — that they claim for 



44 PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY 

their opinions and expositions the authority a* 
corded to them, and established that authoril 
by proper evidence: — and finally, if it could V 
shown that their interpretations were generall 
regarded as of determinate authority in the a^ 
in which they lived, and fairly exhibited th 
dominant and prevailing views of the Church 
— then there might be some ground, perhap 
for insisting that we should hold our own reaso 
in abeyance, lay aside the study of philology, o 
hermeneutics, and of kindred sciences, andrea. 
the Bible only through the medium furnishe 
by the fathers. But we apprehend the day is fa 
distant when these things will be proved. 

But it may be said that primitive interpretatio" 
of Scripture is to be gathered, not solely fror 
the writings of the Fathers, but from the Creed 
and Confessions and Decrees of the Council 
and especially the general or ecumenical Coui 
cils. Whatever doctrine or interpretation th 
primitive ages unanimously attest, whether b 
consent of the Fathers or by Councils, is to b 
implicitly received. It is in both these form^ 
that the Church speaks, and from both we are t 
learn what the Scriptures teach. Let us pa^- 
then from the Fathers to the Councils. Jf w 
seek for the consentient testimony of the Churc! 
in the decrees of the Councils, we shall fin- 
ourselves in the same dilemma as before. Fo 
as there are Fathers against Fathers, so there ari 
Councils against Councils. Suppose that w 
confine our view to General Councils, how^ doc; 
the matter stand? The Romanists reckon a 
many as eighteen General Councils. How man; 
of these are we to regard as of authority in mat 
ters of interpretation and doctrine? Mr. New 



IN INTERPRETATION. 45 

man says that the termination of the era of 
purity cannot be fixed much earlier than the 
Council of Sardicia. A. D. 347. Suppose, then, 
we call the first four centuries ''primitire antiqu- 
ity" and the doctrines of that period "primitive 
purity." ilow many General Councils do we 
find in this period? Only two, viz. that of Nice, 
A. D. 32."). and that of Constantinople A. D. 381. 
If we include the fifth century we get only four; 
and if we embrace the sixth and seventh centu- 
ries, we have in all, six General Councils. Will 
the decisions of any or all of these furnish us 
with an authoritative interpretation of Scripture ? 
From the first two we get the Nicene Creed in 
its present form, and this is all which the Epis- 
copal Church has received from them. The 
Apostles' Creed we also receive from primitive 
times, although it was never formally set forth 
by a General Council. And this Creed we ven- 
erate and love, not merely for its antiquity, but 
for its beautiful simplicity, its conformity to 
Scripture, and its remarkable freedom from all 
]>hilosophysing and theorysing. But after all, 
upon how few points in the Christian system do 
these Creeds touch ? They relate mostly to facts 
in the Gospel history which lie open and 
conspicuous on the face of the New Testament, 
and which, with the exception of the doctrine 
of tlie Trinity, as enunciated in the Nicene Creed, 
and the Descent of Christ into Flell in the Apos- 
tles' Creed, hardly admit of a diversity of opin- 
ion among those who acknowledge th'^ supreme 
authority of Scripture. These councils, there- 
fore, have done but comparatively little towards 
providing the student of the Bible with an inftd- 
Lble standard of interpretation. And on what 



46 PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY 

ground does the Episcopal Church receive these 
Creeds? This is a question of the gravest im- 
portance and is vital to our present inquiry. 
''They ought thoroughly to be received and be- 
lieved," says Article VIII, ^^ because they may be 
proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scrip- 
ture." The Scriptures then, according to the 
express teaching of this venerable Church, are 
the sole rule of faith, and the ancient Creeds are 
to be received not on the ground of any inde- 
pendent and special authority which in conse- 
quence of their antiquity they are supposed to 
possess to command our assent, but because, when 
brought to the test of Scripture, they are found 
to accord with its obvious teachings. The views 
of the Episcopal Church also in regard to the au- 
thority of councils are unmistakeably expressed 
in Art. XXI. "As they are an assembly of men 
whereof all are not governed by the Spirit and 
word of God, they may err, and sometimes have 
erred in things pertaining to God; wherefore 
things admitted by them as necessary to salva- 
tion, have neither strength nor authonty^ unless it 
may be declared that they are taken out of Holy 
Scripture^ 

In all that we have said with respect to the 
early fathers, it has been neither our purpose 
nor our wish to detract one iota from their value 
or diminish their influence as competent and 
credible witnesses of facts; and in this view their 
testimony is the more valuable the nearer it ap- 
proaches the Apostolic age. For this purpose it 
is not necessary that they should be learned and 
able to explain in a satisfactory manner the 
many difficult passages of Scripture. All that is 
required is the oj^portunity of knowing and 



IN INTERPRETATION. 47 

% 

honesty in declaring what they know. The 
great advantage to be derived from the earlier 
Fathers is that they give us in their writings a 
faithful picture of the times in which they lived 
— that they make us acquainted with the exter- 
nal and internal state and condition of the 
primitive Church, its ecclesiastical polity, its 
rites and ceremonies, its moral discipline and 
influence: — that they tell us of the opinions and 
]>ractices that prevailed in the early ages, and 
especially that they furnish us with the most 
abundant and satisfactory evidence of the ex- 
istence of the books of the New Testament at 
such a period of the Christian era as to render it 
impossible for them, widely difiused as they 
were, to have been forged and palmed upon the 
world, in so short a time, as the genuine writings 
of apostles and apostolic men. All that we con- 
tend for is, that they were fallible men, who 
were not only liable to commit mistakes in their 
interpretation of Scripture, but who actually did 
commit many mistakes : that as interpreters they 
were clothed with no authority which obliges us 
to submit implicitly to their opinions: that the 
Bible is not the Rule of faith as interpreted by 
the Fathers, but that the Bible is the Rule of 
faith interpreted by all the lights we can bring 
to bear upon it. 



48 RATIONALISM. 



CHAPTER VI. 

RATIONALISM. 

Thus far it has been our aim lo advocate the 
claims of right Reason as a guide of paramount 
importance in the interpretation of Scripture, 
and to vindicate as a necessary consequence 
the right of private judgment, in opposition to 
the alleged judicial authority of the Bishop of 
Rome on the one hand, and of the early church 
fathers on the other. We have endeavored also 
to define briefly the legitimate province of Rea- 
son in reference to the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, and to show the necessity of restricting its 
exercise to its own proper domain. But while 
it is highly important to guard against an im- 
])licit reliance on the decisions of the Roman 
Pontiff, or on the opinions of the early ex- 
pounders of sacred writ, it must not be over- 
looked that our greatest danger at the present 
day lies in the opposite direction, viz: in placing 
an exclusive reliance on human reason, and ex- 
alting it to the position of a supreme, exclusive 
and infallible arbiter, test, and judge of- the 
truth or falsehood of the facts and doctrines of 
the Bible. This abuse, misapplication and per- 
version of human reason in dealing with the 
claims and statements of Divine Revelation, is 
usually designated by the term Rationalism. 
The system has its origin partly in the corrup- 
tion of the human heart, which, while it cannot 
bring itself to an open rejection of the Gospel 
as a divine revelation, proudly rises in opposition 
to its humiliating and self-denying doctrines, 



RATIONALISM. 4& 

and partly in a high, overweening and deceptive 
estimate of man's religious instincts and reason* 
ing powers. The tendency to exalt and exagge- 
rate the powers and capacities of the human 
mind, and to bring everything if possible down 
to the level and within the grasp of its compre- 
hension is a very remarkable characteristic of 
the present age: and in no department of sci- 
ence has this tendency been more conspicuous 
than in that of theology. 

Rationfilisin as a system' differs from what is 
termed Naturalism in this respect. The latter 
recognizes nothing but the religion of nature, or 
pure Deism; it denies the possibility or at least 
the necessity and probability of a supernatural 
Revelation, and consequently denies that the 
Holy Scriptures are in any proper sense a Reve- 
lation from God. The former, however, ac- 
knowledges the doctrine of Scripture as a divine 
revelation, but brings that doctrine to the stand- 
ard of human reason and conscience. The ad- 
vocates of this system claim not only the moral 
right, but the full capability of each individual, 
not merely to ascertain by the application of 
sound and acknowledged principles of interpre- 
tation the meaning of the sacred writers, but to sit 
in judgment on the facts and doctrines of Scrip- 
ture themselves, and either to reject them as un- 
true, or to put such a forced and unnatural con- 
struction upon the text as to make its teachings 
accord with tlreir subjective feelings and philo- 
sophical speculations. Everything which the Bi- 
ble contains must, according to this system, be 
brought down to the comprehension of human 
reason, and whatever is beyond the reach of the 
human faculties or offensive to the moral sensi- 



50 RATIONALISM. 

bilitiea of the individual is to be discarded. Ra- 
tionalists proceed on the ground that whatever i» 
not intelligible or comprehensible is incredible; 
that only what is of familiar and easy explanation ,. 
and involves no difficulties, is entitled to belief^ 
and that all which is miraculous and mysterious 
in Scripture must be rejected. They either deny 
entirely the divine inspiration of the sacred 
writers, or else advocate such loose views of in- 
spiration as practically amounts to s^ denial of it. 
By the application of a destructive criticism they 
get rid of entire books or large portions of books^ 
from the sacred canon. They generally take 
some system of philosophy to which as a touch- 
stone they bring the evidences and doctrines of 
Kevelation. Whatever passages of the Bible 
appear to be inconsistent with this standard, are- 
discarded from theit' creed. This accounts for 
the varying aspects and numerous phases which 
Rationalism presents, according to the current- 
of the prevailing Philosophy, — a circumstance- 
which renders it extrenely difficult to define it,, 
or to describe fairly and accurately its prominent 
and distinctive features. 

The system of interpretation followed by the- 
Rationalists exhibits precisely the same treat- 
ment of the sacred books as of the Greek and 
Latin classics, in utter disregard of the divine 
and spiritual nature of the truths they contain^ 
the unimpeached and unimpeachable character 
of the writers, their entire credibi4ity and trust- 
v^orthiness, and the divine guidance, superin- 
tendence and inspiration, under which they 
claim to have composed their writings. The- 
principle which lies at the basis of their her^ 
meneutics is Interpret the Bible as you tuould anip 



HATIOT^ALISM. 51 

^r'ther hoof:. This prirteiple, which is iindoubtedly 
«, sound one carried to a certain extent, and 
applied with proper limitations and qualiiica- 
tions, is grossly f^used and perverted by this 
class of interpr-eters, and the Bible is treated by 
them as they would not treat any other book 
iposseesin^ the least clai-ms to authenticity and 
credibility, much less to divine authority. *' Pos- 
sessed of no real reverence for the sacred docu- 
aiients, and destitute of humility in its approaches 
to the fountains of heavenly truth, Rationalism 
<comes not to drink of the pure waters and be 
-satisfied, but to disturb their })lacidity and to 
lessen the enjoynien;t of such as drink at fhe 
same hallowed source. It suffers little of a 
purely religious Jiature to ^t^iid in tJie Bible; 
and even that which it leaves untouched, is so 
atfected by the breath of its scepticism, as to yield 
iio salutary or solid nutriment to the hungry 
-s^pirit. It levels the mountains of God into 
;plains, and removes the ancient landmarks 
^vhich ages have justly venerated. Nor 'does it 
-epare the holiest discourses of Jesus, ^but reduces 
^?ven these to barrenness by the withering blight 
■of its presence." 

It is not our purpose to attempt a refutation 
of this most fiillacious^ baseless, and pernicious 
•system. This would require volumes instead of 
c-a few paragraphs, whieh is a>l] ^:he space we eau 
^ive to it. We have endeavored simply to pre- 
sent an outline of itsniost prominent features, 
:and to put our readers on their guard against a 
-ystem which enthrones reason in the seat of 
^upremacy, which strips Revelation of every 
^hing peculiar to it, and hurls the divine fabrie 
«i?f revealed truth to the ground, leaving nothing 



52 LIGHT OF AUTHORirr. 

for the faith or hope of a poor sinner to rest 
upon. From such an awful heresy, the offspring 
of the evil one — a lying vanity by which many 
who call themselves Christians, and some who 
occupy prominent positions have been unhappily 
deceived — the Church should be quickly and 
thoroughly purged, or we shall have no word of 
Ood left us. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 

One of the guides whose assistance should be 
invoked in the study of the Scriptures, is the 
light of authority. All men are influenced in 
a greater or less degree in the formation of their 
opinions on difficult and important subjects, by 
the views and sentiments of otheis, who are 
supposed from their superior talents, or educa- 
tion, their extensive learning, or favorable op- 
portunities, to be better qualified than themselves 
for arriving at just conclusions. The field of 
knowledge is so vast, that it is impossible, within 
the short span of human life, for any man to 
investigate for himself every subject on which 
he is expected to have and to express an opinion. 
Hence, for a large part of what we profess to 
know, we are indebted to the testimony of oth- 
ers; and the authority of names is every where 
confessedly great. This holds true in regard to 
every science and department of knowledge^ 



LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 53 

and theology furnishes no exception to the re- 
mark. It is natural and highly pioper that we 
should pay a suitable respect and deference to 
the opinions of those who may be possessed of 
superior qualifications and advantages to unfold 
the meaning of Scripture. The Bible is a col- 
lection of ancient records relating to a divine 
economy, composed by different authors, in dif- 
ferent ages,, and in different languages and styles, 
embracing a great variety of subjects, historical, 
prophetical, poetical and ethical. To investigate 
de novo every point of importance in respect to 
them, in disregard of the labors of other minds 
who have been employed in the same field of 
inquiry and research, is beyond the power of a 
single individual, however well Cjualified for the 
task. And the attempt to do this would only 
betray a profound ignorance of our own incom- 
petency and consummate vanity and self-conceit. 
There is not one, therefore, who does not feel 
and at least practically acknowledge the neces- 
sity of resorting to foreign aid and relying more 
or less on authority in the interpretation of 
Scripture. Even the most learned and intelli- 
gent are not insensible to its influence, and the 
uneducated, who are disqualified for forming an 
independent opinion, depend almost entirely on 
authority. Its value on the one hand has un- 
douVjtedly been unduly magnified and exagge- 
rated, and on the other, as unduly depreciated. 
With millions the authority of opinion has the 
force of law. It overrides every thing else, and 
is paramount to all other considerations. Thus 
Newman (on Romanism) remarks, " When the 
sense of Scripture, as interpreted by reason, is 
contrary to the sense given to it by catholic an- 



S4 LIGHT OF AUtHO^irr. 

tiquity, we ought to abide with the latter.'^ 
Others, on tlie contrary^ have affected to despise 
authority, and to rely exclusively either upon? 
their independent judgment or the inward lichfe 
of the Spirit. 

The term authority is not always used in pre- 
cisely the same sense. We speak of the au^ 
thorify of iawy and the auihofrty of iettimdny. By 
authority in the forrs^er ease, we B>ean rightful 
power ; but in the latter, we employ the term as 
equivalent to iveight^ injluenee. The authority of 
law does not admit of degrees; it is perfect and 
complete in itself But the authority of testi- 
mony does admit of various degrees, and is 
weaker or stronger according to the circum- 
stances of the case ^rnd the nature of the testi- 
mony. The autborily of law is obligatory and 
imperative within the spber^of its* action. It is- 
armed with power to command and to enforce 
obedience to its mandates by penal sanctions*. 
Not so is it with the authority of testimony. 
That has no binding force, and it is in the power 
of each individual to admit or reject it, as his 
judgment may dictate. In determining the 
meaning of the 8criptures in the original lan- 
guages, we depend chiefly upon tv^stimony, and- 
are governed by its authority, i e.^-\\e rely in 
most cases for the signification of particular 
words and their sense in combination, on ap 
proved lexicons and grammars, which embody 
in a convenient form and small compass the re- 
sults of a laborious and extensive examination 
of the usage, which from the want of opportu- 
nity or facilities, we may not be able to investi- 
gate for ourselves. We ascertain, therefore, the 
import of a divine precept, through the medium 



LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 55 

of human authority, i «., of testimony; we obeii/ 
the precept because it has the authority of God. 
It is to this human testimony and its authority, 
or that weight and influence we are accustomed 
to accord to it in the formation or confirmation 
of our opinions, that we refer in relation to the 
present subject. This testimony is of course 
fallible, and therefore liable to err, while the 
testimony of God is infallible, and is implicitly 
to be received. 

Human testimony is of different kinds: — 
1. There is the testimony of tradition, and hence 
we speak of the authority of tradition. The 
word tradition, (^ra^a^^^r/?, traditio.) in its etymo- 
loorical and most extensive sen^^e signifies any 
information, whether fact, doctrine, or precept, 
delivered from one person to another in any 
manner, whether orally or in writing. In this 
sense it is constantly employed by the early 
Church fathei's in reference to the Gospels and 
Epistles of the New Testament — the first being 
called for the sake of distinction the Eva-ngdical 
tradition; the second the Apostolical iYo^dition. 
But in tl^strict and now more common and ap- 
propriate sense, the word signifies that which was 
originally delivered orally, and not embodied in 
the sacred yolume, though it may finally have 
been reduced to writing in a subsequent age, to 
which it had been handed down by word of 
mouth. "^ This is a species of testimony, which, 
though elevated by the Jewish Rabbins and by 
the Church of Rome to the same position as the 
volume of inspired truth, is held in very light 
esteem by Protestants, because it corresponds to 

* See Note, p 13-] 7. 



56 LIGHT OF AUTHORirr. 

what in courts of law is called hearsay evidence, 
which is universally regarded as of little intrin- 
sic worth on account of the infirmity and 
treachery of the human memory, and the possi- 
bility of designed misrepresentation which can- 
not be detected from the want of direct and 
positive evidence. 

2. There is next the testimony of an eye or ear 
witness-. As the testimony of tradition is the 
weakest, so this is the strongest and most relia- 
ble of all testimony, so far as pertains to all mat- 
ters cognizable by the senses. Because the early 
church fathers were competent witnesses of facts 
coming within their own personal observation 
and knov/ledge, although possessed of very lim- 
ited information in reference to other things, 
we haye no hesitation in relying on their testi- 
mony with regard to the received canon of 
Scripture, the change of the Sabbath, the mode 
and subjects of baptism, the different orders in 
the Christian ministry, the fo':"m of ecclesiastical 
government, the admission of females to church 
mejribership and communion, the doctrine of 
the Deity of Christ, of the Trinity, &(^and the 
authority of such testimony cannot be rejected 
without betraying great inconsistency and want 
of candor. 

3. There is further the testimony of opinion-, 
whether of one individual or of many collec- 
tively, and this irrespective of the grounds on 
which that opinion may be based. Of course 
this opinion is of greater weight where the 
grounds of belief are distinctly stated, bul where 
this is not done the naked opinion of those 
whom we believe to be competent to form a cor- 
rect opinion carries with it no little influence. 



LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 57 

When we find, for example, that such men as 
Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Pascal, Addison, John- 
son, Runsen. Daniel Webster, and a host of oth- 
ers possessed of the most vigorous and capacious 
intellects, of comprehensive and liberal views, 
and of profound and varied learning, were firm 
believers in the truth and divine authority of 
the Scriptures, though this fact does not directly 
prove the truth of these scriptures it riiust and 
will have great weight with all dispassionate, 
unprejudiced and thoughtiul men, in confiiming 
their own previous convictions, and furnishes at 
the same time an irrefragable confutation of the 
assertion so often to be met with in the writings 
of infidels and sceptics, that none but men of 
shallow intellects and limited knowledge have 
placed confidence in the written word of God 
This remark applies also with equal truth and 
force to particular doctrines and expositions of 
Scripture. 

The witness or testimony in question em- 
braces: — 1. The teachings of the Universal 
Church, or of some ])articular branch of that 
church. 2. The teachings of individual mem- 
bers of the church. The first is contained in 
Church Creeds, Confessions of Faith, Articles of 
Eeligion, Catechisms, Liturgies, Homilies, and 
other symbolical writings. The visible Church 
was established to be ''the witrtess and keeper of 
Hob/ Writ,'' — not the exclusive witness or exclu- 
sive keeper, but especially charged with these 
responsible duties. Others may preserve and 
bear testimony to the Scriptures as well as she, 
but it is specially incumbent on her, because to 
her has been committed '' the Oracles of Truth," 
and she cannot fail to do her duty in this regard 



58 LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. . 

without being wanting in her allegiance io 
Christ. But to be a ivitness of holy writ neces- 
sarily includes the office of teaching the doc- 
trines and precepts which it inculcates and en- 
joins. Nor could she be " the pillar and ground 
of the truth/' unless she were invested with the 
power and ability, not only to preserve, in her 
keeping, but to s^t forth, inculcate and maintain 
by her dogmatic and ethical teaching, Gospel 
truth. Revealed religion is a system of faith 
and practice, requiring instruction for its propa- 
gation in the world; and as the Apostles pro- 
mulgated it by word of mouth as well as by 
their writings, so the Church was instituted to 
supply in some measure their place, by teaching 
the same to her members, no less than by placing 
in their hands the inspired volume. This privi- 
lege and duty she has aimed to discharge in her 
collective capacity by embodying the chief and 
most, essential articles of the Christian faith in 
forms supposed to be best adapted to meet the 
wants of the people. The right to set forth in 
doctrinal, catechetical and liturgical formularies 
her sense of the general meaning of" Scripture, 
has been almost universally accorded to the 
church catholic, and has been exercised by her 
from the earliest period of her establishment, as 
a duty which she owed to herself in order to 
preserve her unity, and to her members that 
they might under all circumstances have a sum- 
mary of Christian faith, drawn up by the collec- 
tive wisdom of the church, to which they may 
refer as a guide in the study of the sacred vol- 
ume. It cannot be denied, that in the exercise 
of this right she has frequently erred, by setting 
forth dogmas which either find little support in 



LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 59 

the word of God, and which are by no means 
essential, or that are clearly at variance with the 
sacred record, and has enforced them with an in- 
tolerance utterly inconsistent with the spirit of 
the Gospel. But notwithstanding this, her right 
thus to embody the collective opinions of her 
members in creeds and confessions of faith, can- 
not well be questioned. And what may be done 
by the whole church, may be done by any por- 
tion or branch thereof The powers and privi- 
leges with whioh the church catholic is invested 
attach to any sound branch of the same. And 
there is not a single denomination of Christians 
claiming to be a part of the visible churchy 
which has not either a wi-itten or a mental creed. 
But as the several individuals who compose the 
church or any branch of it are not infallible, so 
neither does infallibility attach to either of them 
collectively; and their symbolical books are tcr 
be received only so far as we are assured they 
may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy 
Scripture. At the same time, much deference 
and respect are due to formularies thus set forth 
under the sanction of ecclesiastical authority, 
and these are generally accorded to them. They 
are important helps in the investigation of Scrip- 
ture. 

But this method of propounding divine truth 
for the use of the members of the church is al- 
together inadequate for the purpose intended. 
Hence our Saviour instituted within the church 
a standing ministry, who should have ecclesias- 
tical authority to explain the Scriptures to the 
people. Accordingly we find that those who 
are ordained to the sacred office are to be teach- 
ers (1 Cor. 12: 28, Eph. 4: 11); to give attend- * 



60 LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 

lance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, 
{1 Tim. 4: J3); to labor in word and doctrine, 
(1 Tim. 5: 17); to rightly divide the word of 
truth, (2 Tim. 2: 14); to preach the word, to 
reprove, to rebuke and exhort, (2 Tim. 4: 2); to 
be mighty in the Scriptures, (Acts 18 : 24) ; to be 
apt to teach, (I Tim. 3:2); to be an example to 
believers in word and in faith, (1 Tim. 4: 12) — 
all which plainly intimates that they should be 
possessed of the requisite qualifications to ex- 
pound truly and faithfully the doctrines which 
they themselves have learned from the word of 
God, and to commend them to the belief and 
practice of mankind. Hence the Church is 
bound to furnish those who are preparing for 
the sacred ofiice every facility in her power for 
acquiring a thorough and critical knowledge of 
the Scriptures, and to see that those whom she 
appoints to minister at her altars and to be the 
authorized expounders of the V/ord from her 
pulpits, are properly qualified rightly to divide 
the word of truth, that the laity who look to 
them for instruction, auvd who naturally and 
properly place great confidence in their teaching, 
may be rightly instructed in the way of life. 

But in addition to the oral instruction of in- 
dividual ministers, there are ample facilities for 
embodying their expositions of Scripture in a 
more systematic and permanent form by means 
of the press; and those who have left as a legacy 
to the church their views of its meaning in their 
writings, are entitled to our gratitude and re- 
spect. Of these writings, such as embody pro- 
fessed commentaries and exegetical treatises on 
the whole or separate portions of the Bible are 
of chief value to the student, and their use can- 



LIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 61 

not be dispensed with without great loss to him- 
self. The weight which we are to attach to tlier 
opinions of commentators must depend on vari- 
rious considerations: such as the age in which 
they lived, their literary attainments and quali- 
fications, theif exegetieal tact^ discrimination 
and judgment, and the state o4 their moral feel- 
ings. In reference to the last, it should be 
specially borne in mind that religion addresses 
itself not to the intellect alone, but also to the 
moral feelings of mankind, and that those feel- 
ings are deeply interested in the questions — 
What is Scripture? and What is its meaning? 
The heart will necessarily and unavoidably exert 
more or less influence over the judgment on all 
moral questions, and in all matters of Biblical 
criticism and interpretation involving important 
principles, or essential doctrines. Something 
more, therefore, than competent learning and 
exegetieal tact is necessary to a i-ight interpreta- 
tion of Scripture. The moral feelings of the 
interpreter must be in unison with those of the 
sacred writer, else no sympathy will exist be- 
tween them, and the meaning of the latter will 
be often missed^ and misrepresented. Hence, 
before we adopt this or that commentator as a 
guide in our religious inquiries, we should en- 
deavor to ascertain the character and inward 
life of him whom we consult — the state of his 
i-eligious affections, and the influence which 
these may have had in giving a particular com- 
plexion and direction to his views of Christian 
doctrine. In many cases, it is true, adequate 
leai'ning may be all that is requisite to give the 
true sense, and wa should candidly and impar- 
tially examine and weigh the reasons which 



62 LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

may be assigned in support of an interpretation, 
let it come from whatever quarter it may. Still 
no man can be qualified in the highest and best 
sense to be a reliable interpreter of the inspired 
vrritings, whose mind is not imbued with the 
spirit of Christ, and whose moral and religious 
feelings are not ia unison with his* 



CHAPTER VIII, 
THE LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

There remains to be noticed one more guide, 
whose assistance should be invoked in the 
^tiidy and interpretation of the Word of God, 
viz., ike inward light of the Holy Spirit^ one part 
of whose office it is to guide the humble and 
sincere inquirer into the truth. The abso- 
lute necessity of the teaching of the Holy 
Spirit, in order to enlighten the mind in the 
knowledge of the Scriptures, is a fact as clearly 
asserted in the Word of God as any other doc- 
trine of revelation. This divine aid is rendered 
necessary in consequence of the fall of man, by 
reason of which not only has his will become per- 
verse and his affections estranged from God, but 
his understanding has become darkened, .so that 
lie cannot discern spiritual truths, in all their 
fulness, unction and power. ''The natural man, 
{i.e, the unrenewed man,) receiveth not the things 
of the Si^irit of God/' — the truths of his word— 



LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 63 

*' for the}' are foolishness to him ; neither can he 
know them because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned," i. e. they can onl> be fully understood 
by the assistance of the Holy Spirit of which 
he is destitute. The Spirit alonecan fully inter- 
pret what was given by the Spirit. Accordingly 
the assistance of the Spirit for this puipose is 
repeatedly promised to all believers, who will 
seek for it in earnest prayer. But as the opera- 
tions of the Holy Spirit on the understanding 
are not distinguishable from those of our own 
minds, the utmost caution is necessary, lest we 
impute to the Heavenly Teacher what is pro- 
perly the offspring of human prejudice, super- 
stition, fanaticism or ignorance. For while, on 
the one hand, the necessity of special aid from 
on high is denied, and even derided by Ration- 
alistic interpreters, such aid has been relied on 
by others to the exclusion of everything else. 
This exclusive reliance on the ii^ward lights as it 
is termed, has led its advocates to disparage hu- 
man learning, to disregard the plainest princi- 
ples of interpretation, and to undervalue the 
Bible itself as the highest source of religious 
knowledge, and the only standard of faith and 
practice. But while both these extremes, lead- 
ing as they do to the most mischievous errors, 
are to be carefully avoided, there is a middle 
ground which every student of the Bible should 
occupy. The promised assistance of the Holy 
Spirit, it should be well considered, is not grant- 
ed to believers in answer to prayer, for the pur- 
pose of communicating to them new truths not 
before revealed; for this would be equivalent to 
supernatural inspiration; — but simply for tlie 
purpose of enabling them rightly to understand 



64 LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

those which have been already made known. 
The grace conferred is co-operating grace — grace 
not to supercede the exercise of our reason, the 
teachings of others, or the use of human learn- 
ing and literary appliances, but to render them 
more effective. The promised illumination is 
only the ordinary assfstance of the Holy Spirit 
extended to the understanding — an assistance 
which neither supercedes the use, nor overrules 
the decisions of our natural faculties. On the 
contrary, we are constantly exhorted to employ 
these faculties on the subject of revealed truth. 
While the Spirit assists and exalts, it leaves our 
reason free, and no more makes us infallible 
than the ordinary influences of the Spirit upon 
the heart render us impeccable. The teaching 
in question does not imply any peculiar difficul- 
ty in Scripture. Its necessity does not arise from 
the obscurity and intricacy of its language, or 
from the incomprehensibility of its doctrines, 
but simply from the natural blindness of the 
human mind with respect to spiritual things and 
its deep rooted aversion to the wisdom of God 
displayed in the plan of salvation. In truth, it 
is the things which are most clearly revealed, 
that are often most misunderstood. Hence 
some writers who have most grossly perverted 
the plainest language in relation to the distin- 
guishing truths of the Gospel, have mostsuccess- 
j'ully explained some of the most perplexing 
difficulties of diction and phraseology with re- 
gard to mattej's in which the great truths of the 
Gospel are not immediately concerned. Nor are 
we to suppose that the teaching of the Spirit 
communicates any meaning to Scripture which 
is not contained in the words themselves. He 



LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 65 

makes men wise vp to what is written, and not 
beyond it. The Spirit of God teaches only what 
is contained in the Scriptures, and this always 
through the instrumentality of the Scriptures. 
^'Open thou mine eyes," prays the Psalmist, 
*'that I may see wondrous things in thy law;" 
but the wondrous things here spoken of, are not 
things which are not contained in the law. but 
things already there, which our natural blind- 
ness disqualifies us from seeing. Whatever is 
taught contrary to the Scripture, therefore, or in 
addition to them, or without their instrumen- 
tality, is to be ascribed to the Spirit of darkness, 
or to our own perverted understandings. Nor 
does it follow because true Christians are taught 
by the Spirit, that they are taught the true 
meaning of every pas^^age of the Word of God. 
The correctness of the explanation must ulti- 
mately rest on the arguments by which they 
support it, and not on the alleged ground of di- 
vine assistance. The explanations of an in- 
spired apostle are doubtless to be received im- 
plicitly, even though we may not able to see the 
legitimacy of the conclusion from the premises. 
But the explanations of eveiy uninspired man 
must be received no farther than they are seen 
to be the necessary result of the word of inspi- 
ration. Nor because all true Christians are 
more or less taught by the Spirit, does it follow 
that they all must agree in their interpretations. 
This assistance is not granted in the same pro- 
portion and degree to all. Even good men are 
not able to divest themselves altogether of pre- 
judice, and passion, or a regard to self-interest 
in their examination of Scripture. Prejudice is 
no doubt one of the greatest obstacles in the 
5 



66 LIGHT Of Tfi]fc HOLY SPIKIIT. 

way of understanding and explaining the Word 
of God. While this will take out of Scripture 
the meaning which it manifestly contains, it will 
put into it a meaning which it was never intend- 
ed by the writer to convey. Hence, while it was 
related of Grotius that he could find Christ no= 
where in the Old Testament, it was said of Coc- 
caous, that he found Christ everywhere. The 
doctrine of the teaching of the Holy Spirit^ 
then, affords no warrrant for implicit submission 
to the interpretation even of the best of men. 
At the same time, from what has been said, we 
clearly perceive the duty of prayer for divine 
guidance. Without this no sure progi'ess or cer- 
tain results can be expected in the knowledge 
of the Word of God. There is great truth and 
force in Luther's aphorism, when rightly under- 
stood, Bene orasse est bene studidsse. And yet even 
this is not, as to any particular passage, to be re- 
ceived as conclusive evidence that we have at- 
tained the true interpretation. We are war- 
ranted to believe that God will hear our sincere 
pra3'^er ' but the only evidence that he has^done 
so is that we now have light when before we 
Were in darkness; that we now perceive the 
meaning which before lay hid from us. 

Intimately connected with the aid of the 
Spirit affoided to the understanding of the de- 
vout inquirer after truth, is his moral influence 
on the will and affections. As we look for a 
right disposition of heart in the commentator 
whom we consult as reliable authority, so the 
same disposition is equally important in our- 
selves, if we would rightly apprehend th0 
meaning of the Scriptures. Literary qualiii- 
cations are obviously necessary to the inter- 



LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPlklt. 67 

pr-eter; indeed they cannot be dispensed with ^ 
but moral qualifications are no less indispensible. 
When Christ appeared on earth, the light of his 
teaching shone in the darkness — not in the 
midst of intellectual darkness, but of moral 
and spiritual darkness — among unholy and 
sinful hearts— and the darkness did not com- 
prehend it. Unholy affections had surround- 
ed the mental eye and prevented the ap- 
prehension and reception of divine truth. Such 
is the influence of the heart for good or for evil 
on our judgment, in regard to all moral ques- 
tions, and of course in regard to the whole of 
Scripture verity, that it may be laid down 
as a fundamental principle, that Scripture to be 
rightly understood must be conte7nplated from within 
and not from without. The old maxim, Pectus fa- 
cit theologum, — ''the breast makes the theologi- 
an," will always remain true, and other things 
being equal or nearly equal, he will best under- 
stand and explain Scripture, who most loves 
Scripture. "God has determined," says Pascal, 
"that Divine things shall enter through the heart 
into the mind, and not through the mind into 
the heart. In divine things, therefore it is ne- 
cessary to love them, in order to know them, 
and we enter into truth only through charity." 
"An inward interest in the doctrines of theolo- 
gy,'' says Hagenbach, "is needful for a Biblical 
interpreter. The study of the New Testament 
presupposes as an indispensible requisite a sen- 
timent of piety, and religious experience. The 
Scripture will not be rightly and spiritually 
comprehended, unless the Spirit of God become 
himself the interpreter of his Word: the ange- 
lus interpres, to open us the true meaning." It 



68 LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

was a favorite maxim with Augustine, ''^Believe 
that you may knowj' — not first know in order to 
believe; for the understanding, while it is not 
the ivay to faith, is yet the reward of faith. ^'He 
who has not believed," says Anselm, "will not ex- 
perience; and he who has not experienced can- 
not know." "The theologian," says Tholuck, 
"must himself believe the doctrines which he 
studies. Without this moral qualification it is 
impossible to obtain a true insight into theologi- 
cal truth." "If goodness," says Trench, "be so 
essential even to the orator, that one of old de- 
fined him as Vir bonus, dicendi paritus, and few 
I think will quarrel with that honus^ or count it 
superfluous in the definition, how much more 
essentially must it belong, and in its highest 
form of love towards God, and to all which truly 
witnesses of God, to the great theologian." The 
interpreter of Scripture must possess a heart in 
cordial sympathy with its writings, otherwise he 
cannot grasp their profound, spiritual import. 
He must have the mind of Christ in order to 
comprehend the word of Christ. He must earn- 
estly desire to know the truth for the truth's 
sake. He must possess an humble, docile spirit. 
He must be willing to sit with meekness at the 
feet of inspiration and draw the pure water of 
life from the great fountain of revealed truth. 
"The meek will he guide in judgment; the meek 
will he teach his way." And not only are a 
confiding faith, a childlike docility, and an hum- 
ble, prayerful frame of mind essential to the 
successful study of divine truth, but also an obe- 
client heart Some appear' desirous to know the 
will of God, who yet are averse to obey it. They 
approve of it in theory, but not in practice. 



LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 69 

But such will not succeed. There must be the 
willing mind and a sincere endeavor to exhibit 
in the daily tenor of life the gr'^at principles and 
precepts of God's Word. '"If any man," says the 
Saviour, "will do his will, he shall know of the 
doctrine, whether it be of God." The Bible 
brings us into contact with holy men, w^ho spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. To 
understand aright their language we must be 
holy ourselves. An analagous truth is univer- 
sally admitted in relation to every other subject 
of inquiry. To understand the poet's creations 
we must be imbued in some measure with a po- 
etic taste. To comprehend or relish the pro- 
found speculations of the mental philosopher 
requires a philosophic spirit. In like manner, 
what communion of soul can the unrenewed 
and selfish sinner have with the sacred writers? 
The possession of a loving heart, open to receive 
the teachings of heavenly wisdom, in connexion 
with a spirit of cheerful obedience to the divine 
precepts, is the great secret of the success of many 
interpreter^ who are not furnished with much hu- 
man learning. On the other hand, the entire 
want of a spiritual taste and relish for divine and 
heavenly truths is sufficient to account for the 
failure of many a man who heaps together rich 
stores of erudition, which only serve to obscure 
the truth instead of elucidating it 



70 LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION. 

CHAPTER IX. 

LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION, 

Before proceeding to exhibit in detail the 
principles and rules of Biblical Interpretation, 
it will facilitate our progress if we devote a few 
-paragraphs to some general preliminary remarks 
on Language, with which Interpretation is con- 
cerned. Language is the expression of thought 
— ^the outward medium through which a com- 
munication is formed between mind and mind-— 
the mode by which we convey to other minds a 
conception of the ideas, sentiments, and emo- 
tions, which exist in our own. There is no 
direct communication between the minds of 
men. One man cannot immediately perceive 
the thoughts and sentiments of another. If 
then we desire to make known to others the 
thoughts and feelings which lie within our 
breasts, we can do so only by resorting to some 
outward manifestation of them, i ^., to signs and 
symbols cognizable by the senses. But the 
necessary intercourse of mankind in social life, 
— the progressive improvement and advance- 
ment of individuals and communities, and the 
intellectual and moral culture of the race, ren- 
der a mutual communication and interchange 
of thought and opinion among the various mem- 
bers and orders of society unavoidable and in- 
dispensible. There is found in man, also, a pri- 
maeval principle ever urging him to represent 
outwardly what moves him strongly within, in- 
dependently of any idea of utility, or a conscious 
desire to obtain a certain end by this develop- 
ment. Hence means were devised and resorted, 



LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION. 71 

to from the first to facilitate this mutual com- 
munication. The means employed for this pur- 
pose are denominated the sigyis of ideas ^ and the 
term Language^ in its broadest sense, includes all 
these means. Language is not absolutely indis- 
pensible to the existence of thought, but only to 
its development and expression. Pure thought, 
like pure spirit, is certainly a coaceivable thing, 
however rarely it may be found. It may exist 
in the mind as an idea in a dormant or latent 
state, just as a principle of action may lie dor- 
mant in the soul, till it is called out in the trans- 
actions of life; and just as heat exists in all bo- 
dies in a latent state. But that thought may 
possess an actual as well as an ideal existence, 
whether in the mind itself, or in its outvvard 
workings, it must be clothed in some form, and 
that form, whatever it may be, is called language. 
''Thinking," says Plato, " is the talking of the 
soul with itself" Thinking then, as an act, pro- 
cess, or operation of the mind, is distinguishable 
from a thought or idea existing in the mind, and 
this process cannot be carried on without the 
use of language, any more than can a communi- 
cation of thought to others. 

There are three modes of developing the 
thoughts which exist in the mind — three distinct 
varieties of signs of ideas. The first is the ma- 
ierial, as in the plastic or fine arts. The second 
is the phenominal, as in outward actions, looks, ges- 
tures, pantomimic representations, &c. The 
third is the verbal, SiS in oral and written language. 
The signs employed in the first two are addressed 
to the eye, or the touch ; those employed in the 
third are addressed either to the eye or the 
ear. Accordingly language, in its widest accep- 



I^i LA^GJJAGM — iNTERPRETATIOJir. 

tation, is the expression, by visible, audible, oi* 
tangible si^ns, of the thoughts, feelings or state 
of one mind, in order to excite the conception! 
of the same in another. Language is either 
natural, artificial, or mixed. It is yiatural, when 
the signs employed are spontaneously suggested 
to the mind, and are of such a nature that they 
may be easily and readily understood by any 
one without previous instruction, or an^ con- 
ventional agreement, or the introduction of 
arbitrary customs. Of this description are cer- 
tain looks, cries, gestures, &:q.^ indicative of some 
powerful emotion, of distress, joy, sorrow, fear 
or alarm. These signs are universal in their use,* 
and limited to no particular nation or age of the 
world. Language is artificial, w^ien it consists of 
signs which are not spontaneous, but arbitrary, 
and adopted by tacit convention or common 
consent as expressive of ideas. Such are words, 
hieroglyjohics, some symbolical actions and em- 
blems. It is mixed when it consists of signs 
partly natural and partly artificial. The lan- 
guage of the deaf and dumb is of this charac- 
ter, and is the most successful attempt to reduce 
inaudible signs and gestures to a scientific form. 
Arbitrary signs are of course partial ancl limited 
in their use, and understood only by those who 
agree to adopt them, there being no natural fit- 
ness in them to convey the ideas intended, but 
deriving their signification from previous agree- 
ment of the parties using them. Verbal lan- 
guage, whether oral or written, belongs entirely 
to this class, because there is nothing in the 
sound, with the exception perhaps of onom a to- 
poetic words, and nothing in the forms of the 
letters or of the words calculated to suggest the 



LANGL\\GE — INTERPRETATION. 73 

ideas to our minds, which they are employed to 
convey. Spoken language is remote from thought 
and written or alphabetical language is equally 
remote from oral language, and there is no 
necessary connexion between the two. We ex- 
press a thought by an aibitrary sound addressed 
to the ear, which has no natural connexion with 
it whatever; and this arbitrary sound is then 
represented to the eye by an arbitrary figure, 
which has no more natural connexion with the 
sound than the sound has with the thought. 
That both the words of speech and the charac- 
ters of writing are in themselves entirely arbi- 
trary, is manifest from the fact that a great va- 
riety of difF'^rent sounds and different signs is 
used by different nations, with equal conveni- 
ence, to express the same thing. Words, whether 
spoken or written, are the most perfect signs of 
ideas. As vocal organs were bestowed upon 
mankind for the purpose of intercommunion, 
the employment of articulate sounds is a natural 
process in itself, and hence universally prevails, 
though the particular sounds employed to con- 
vey ideas are arbitrary, and left to the choice of 
individuals or communities. As there never has 
been a time since the origin of the human race, 
when men did not possess the faculty of speech, 
so there never has been a time when oral lan- 
guage was not employed. At first man's wants 
and ideas were few. and he required but a few 
w^ords to express them; but as his knowledge 
increased and his intellect expanded, additions 
were made to his stock of words, and those al- 
ready in use received an accession of meaning. 
Alphabetical or written language was the inven- 
tion of a later period, and did not most probably 



74 LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION. 

come into use, until about the time of Abraham. 
In the mean time, however, the longing desire 
to give a permanent form to thought, and to 
transmit information to distant persons and 
places and to future times, was gratified to some 
extent, by the invention of pictorial representa- 
tions and hieroglyphics, such as were employed 
in Egypt, and in the East generally. These 
cumbersome and very inadequate signs of ideas 
^vere superceded by the introduction of pho- 
netic characters. Words expressed in sounds are^ 
the immediate signs of thought : words expressed 
in writing, the mediate. We have remarked that 
the term language is applied to signs of any. kind 
which are employed as the vehicle of thought. 
In like manner, the terms to explain, and to inter- 
pret^ are not confined to w^ords simply, but used 
in reference to sj^mbols, emblems, human ac- 
tions, and all the outward signs which men have 
adopted to give expression to their thoughts and 
emotions. In a more restricted sense, however, 
the term language is applied to verbal signs of 
. thought, whether spoken or writtei: and as in 
the Bible we have to deal chiefly wath such 
signs, so the terms language and interpretation, 
when used without any additional expression, 
are to be understood in this work as employed 
exclusively in reference to words. 

Words are articulate sounds, or the represen- 
tatives of articulate sounds on or in some mate- 
rial, by certain adopted characters to which, 
single or combined, we attach certain ideas. 
The particular idea or action thus attached to 
any word, is called its signification^ and the gen- 
eral idea, or assemblage of ideas, conveyed by 
several words grammatically connected together^ 



LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION. 75 

is called the sense or meaning of the combined 
words or period. And it is the business of the 
interpreter, by the application of correct princi- 
ples and rules, to discover and exhibit this true 
sense. 

Interpretation is both a science and an art. 
As a science^ it consists of axioms, principles 
and rules, according to which we ought to pro- 
ceed in discovering the true meaning of an au- 
thor. As an art, it is the practical and skillful 
application of those principles and rules to the 
explanation of particular passages. The former 
is technically denominated Hermenentlcs ; the 
latter, Exegesis. These stand to each other in 
the relation of theory and practice Thus we 
speak of the Exegesis of a passage according to 
HermenciLtical principles. The theory by which 
the Sacred books are explained, as distinguished 
from Legal instruments or other writings,, is 
called Sacred or Biblical Hcrmeneutics, which, 
when ranked as a part of Theology, is called 
Exegetica I Th eo logy. 

As an art. Interpretation is co-eval with lan- 
guage itself, and men, following the light of their 
reason and common sense, discovered the true 
import of language long before Interpretation 
was reduced to a scientific form, just as they 
learned to speak and write their vernacular cor- 
rectly without the aid of Dictionaries and Gram- 
mars. As a science, Interpretation is of com- 
paratively modern date. The general principles 
of Hermeneutics are such as lie in the common 
mind, and those which every man who speaks 
or hears, unconsciously applies in the daily use 
of language. The basis on which tliey rest is 
reason and common sense, as applied to Ian- 



76 LANGUAGE — INTERPRETATION. 

gunge; and any principles which can be shown 
to be at variance with these can never be ad- 
mitted as rules in the science. The ability of 
good men, from education and careful observa- 
tion, to explain Scripture correctly without hav- 
ing studied the theory of interpretation, by no 
means detracts from the utility or importance 
of the science. Rules of interpretation, them- 
selves, it is true, can no mare make a good in- 
terpreter, than rules of pc^etry can make a good 
poet. At the same time, they are highly ser- 
viceable in teaching us how to apply the requisite 
learning and natural talent and tact to the best 
advantage. Many Biblical expositors, of unques- 
tioned piety and considerable learning and tal- 
ent, have failed through the want of what is 
commonly called judgment; and it is to the cul- 
ture of the judgment that the rules which 
appertain to this science are especially directed. 
Though the study of Interpretation may fail to 
render the Bible student a very good interpre- 
ter, it can hardly fail to prevent him from be- 
coming a very bad one. It will not only assist 
him in forming an independent opinion himself, 
but enable him to judge with discrimination of 
the interpretations of others, and amid various 
and conflicting opinions, to adopt that which is 
best supported by reason : and this is by far its 
most extensive application. 



OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION, &C. 77 



CHAPTER X. 

THE OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION — ITS NECES- 
SITY AND DIFFICULTY. 

The object of interpretation is to discover and 
exhibit the true sense of anotiier's words — his 
real meaning, no more and no less. This of 
course implies that this sense is no^ obvious; 
for if it were, there would be no necessity for 
rules of interpretation — no room for the exer- 
cise of the art in question. But as words are 
employed expressly to convey ideas, how does 
it happen that, if properly used for this purpose, 
there can be any reasonable doubt as to the 
ideas designed to be conveyed ? There are 
many circumstances which conduce to render a 
speaker or writer's meaning equivocal and capa- 
ble of misconstruction. Some of these it may 
be proper briefly to notice. 

In the first place, it should be borne in mind, 
that language is at the best but an imperfect ve- 
hicle of thought. Its nature and essence is not 
a direct communion of mind, but a communion 
by intermediate signs, and hence the total ex- 
clusion of every imaginable misapprehension is 
in many cases absolutely impossible. The words 
employed, taken by themselves, often express 
more or less than the speaker or writer intend- 
ed, and consequently without further explana- 
tion and proper qualification are liable to be 
misconstrued. Nor would further explanations 
always remedy the difficulty, but rather increase 
it. For the explanations given might still be 
open to misconstruction and require further ex- 
planations to make them clear. And men have 



tS OBJECT OP INTERPRETATION-^ 

learned by experience that little is gained by at- 
tempting to speak or write with absolute clear- 
ness and endless specifications. We are, there- 
fore, constrained in a multitude of instances, to 
leave a considerable part of our meaning to be 
found out by interpretation ; and this circum- 
stance must often necessarily cause greater or 
less uncertainty with regard to the exact mean- 
ing which our vvords were intended to convey. 
Mathematical precision is impossible except in 
mathematics themselves. 

Again : Another circumstance which renders 
interpretation both necessary and difficult is the 
intrinsic ambiguity of language. By this is 
meant that a large portion of sentences consid- 
ered in themselves, i e. if regard be had merely 
to the vvords of which they are composed, are 
capable of expressing more than one meaning. 
Take the following passage, of Scripture as an il- 
lustration of this remark. "Ye have an unction 
(anointing) from the Holy One, and know all 
things." 1 John 2: 20. Now if we consider these 
words in themselves merely, admitting that they 
were addressed to Christians, it will be ])erceived 
that they are capable of several different inter- 
pretations. Thus the first clause may signif}^, 
'Through the favor of God you have become 
Christians or believers in Christ," — :anointing 
being a ceremony of consecration, and Christians 
being considered as consecrated and set apart 
from the rest of mankind as a peculiar people, 
devoted to the service of God. Or it may mean, 
"You have been truly sanctified in heart and 
life by the power of God," — a figure borrowed 
from outward consecration, being used to denote 
inward holiness. Or, '"you have been endued 



ifS KJECllSSIT^ ANt) DIFFICULT^. 7D 

with miraculous powers — consecrated as inspired 
prophets and teachers in the Christian commu- 
nity." The term Holy One in this relation may 
detiote either God the Father, God the Son, or 
Gad the Holy Ghost. The second clause "Ye 
know all things," literally expresses Omnisci- 
ence, and if addressed to God would be undei*- 
stood in that sense. But besides this meaning, 
it illay signify, *'you are fully acquainted with all 
the objects of human knovVledge." Or, *' you know 
every truth connected with Christianity," or) 
" you have all the knowledge requisite to form 
your faith and direct your conduct." This 
ambiguity of language arises from a variety 
of causes, among which are the following : 

1. Nearly every word in all languages is used 
in a variety of significations and w^ith different 
shades of meaning. Now as we assign one oi? 
another of these meanings to different words in 
a sentence, we change the import of the whole 
sentence. Take the following example : "The 
child is learning his letters,'' — "The merchant is 
writing his letters^'' — Dr. Johnson was a man of 
letters.'^ Now it is plain to every one, that the 
word letters is used in each of these sentences in 
a different sense, and no man of common sense 
would attach one and the same sigiiification id 
it in the three instances specified. Many words 
loo, have a different meaning in combination 
with other words, as in set phrases and idiomat- 
ic expressions, from what they have singly and 
separately. Now if words were all uni vocal, 
and invariably employed whether singly or in 
combination in the same sense, there would be 
little occasion for explanation, and the labor of 
the interpreter would be circumscribed wuthiri 



80 OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION — 

very narrow limits. But, as it is, it is possible to 
understand all the separate words in a sentence 
and still not be certain of the writer's meaning. 

2. In addition to the common and literal signi- 
fication, words may be used in a multitude of 
figurative senses, and many sentences may 
be understood either figuratively or literally. 

3. Many sentences not properly figurative, are 
yet not to be taken strictly and in the full ex- 
tent of their meaning, but with some limitation. 

4. In the Sacred -Scriptures as in many other 
productions, much of the language employed is 
the language of emotion or strong feeling. The 
strict and literal import of this language may 
indeed express the meaning really intended, but 
such is rarely the case. A proper allowance 
must be made for the excited state of mind of 
the writer, and his words should not be inter- 
preted with strict philosophical accuracy. 5. As 
language is conventional, its use varies in differ- 
ent ages and nations, according to the state of 
society, the prevailing customs and the temper- 
ament of the people. Some nations as well as 
individuals are in the habit of expressing them- 
selves in common life far more strongly, figura- 
tively and hyperbolically than others. Hence 
a sentence translated verbally from one language 
into another will often convey a wider meaning 
than was intended by him who uttered it. Our 
Saviour, for example, says of John the Baptist 
that he "came neither eating nor drinking," 
Matt. 11:18. This idiomatic expression, if ut- 
tered for the first time in our language, would 
appear exceedingly strange and paradoxical. 
But such was not its character as spoken by 
Christ. The words simpl}^ mean that John, lead- 



Its NECESSITY AND DIFFICULTY. 8l 

itig an ascetic life, practiced the strictest self-de- 
nial, abstained from indulging in the use even of 
such food and drinks as were customary among 
the people, and contented himself with the 
poorest fare. He refrained from "eating bread 
a.nd drinking wine," as Luke informs us in the 
fuller form of the same expression, (ch. 11 , 33) 
and lived upon ''locusts and wild honey." Our 
S^iviour, on another occasion said, that he who 
would be a follower of his "must hate father 
and mother." Luke 14: 26. Taken literally, the 
import of this declaration would be not only 
impious but impossible. But the Greek verb 
fiitjuv is frequentl}^ to be understood in a limited 
sense, and by this bold figure our Saviour simply 
meant that his followers must be willing and 
prepared to sacrifice their dearest earthly at- 
tachments in his cause, and allow no worldly 
ties to interfere with their allegiance to him-, 
(compare Math. G:24 and 10:37, where the 
meaning is more clearly expressed.) 

Further: It will be recollected that the Bible 
is not the production of one man or one age, but 
composed of a number ef separate and independ^ 
ent writings, penned by different persons, un- 
known to each other, living in different and 
remote ages, extending through a period of 
nearly 2000 years, and treating the subjects on 
which they write in a great variety of style, from 
the simplest prose to the most lofty poetry. 
And not only are we widely separated from the 
authors of the Bible by distance of time, in con- 
sequence of which vve have to contend with the 
<lifficulties inseparable from written language in 
a greater degree than otherwise we should have 
to do; but we are separated from them, also, by 
6 



82 OBJECT OF INTERI^RETATION— 

distance of place and oircuinstance. Their laws, 
their manners, their customs, their inodes of 
thinking, were entirely dissimilar to everything 
of the kind with which we are now conversant^ 
and their allusions to existing circumstances 
among other people are sometimes so slight^ 
and yet so intimately connected with an argu- 
ment or illustration, as to require on the part of 
the readers a large measure of previous infor-^ 
mation and knowledge. Add to these consider^ 
ations the fact that the Holy Scriptures were 
originally written in languages entirely different 
from our own, both of which have long ceased to 
be vernacular, and that as to one of them we have 
no contemporaneous literature to aid us in the 
interpretation of the Sacred books. The Scrip- 
tures, moreover, abound in reffrences and allu- 
sions to supersensuous and spiritual objects and to 
events such as never occur in our times. All 
these and many other circumstances which might 
be mentioned, conspire to make it difficult to un-. 
derstand the Scriptures and render the labors of 
a skillful and intelligent interpreter necessary. 
Eutone of the chief causes of difficulty in the in- 
terpretation of the Bible and of diversity of 
opinion with regard to its meaning, — a cause 
which may be said to be peculiar to that book, 
— is the habit of perverse and pernicious in- 
terpretation, which has unhappily prevailed 
for ages, arising from the force of educational 
bias and sectarian prejudice, or from the unlim- 
ited indulgence of a misguided imagination, or 
from a desire to make the Bible mean all that 
it can by any possibility be supposed capable of 
meaning. Methods of interpretation have been 
?idopted as erroneous as they ^re pernicious. 



•ITS NECESSITY AND DIFFICULTY. 8a 

'The Bible is constantly treated as if fancy or ca- 
;;::>rice and not reason qmcIl common sense were 
the proper organ to direct its meaning. Instead 
,of following the inductive method, which is the 
only true and safe 'mode of discovering the 
meaning of the Word of God, as of every other 
book, men have resorted to the dogmatic meth- 
od, the scholastic or philosophic, or the mystical 
and allegorical, by rjaeans of which they have 
succeeded in piitting such a meaning into the 
Bible as supported their particular doctrinal or 
^philosophical creed, or in giving free scope to the 
vagaries of a lawless imagination. Hence tomes 
upon tomes have been written professedly to 
■elucidate the Scrip tures^ which serve only to 
perplex the student and lead him far away from 
the right path to truth. It is related in the 
Persian letters^ th«4: Eica, one of the correspoK- 
.dents introduced in to them, having been to visit 
the library of a French convent, ;\y rote thus to his 
friend in Persia concerning what had passed. 
^•Father," said I to the Librarian, "whatar-e these 
ilmge volumes which fill the whole side of the 
library?" "These," said he, "are the interpre- 
ters of the Scriptures.'' "There is a prodigious 
number of them," replied T, "the Scriptures 
must have been very dark forcuerly; and very 
^lear at present. Bo there rem&m sti*fl any 
•doubts? Are there now any pGints contested?" 
"Are there!" answered he with surprise, "are 
'there! There are almost as many as there are 
lines." "You astonish me," ^aid J. "vrhart then 
have all these authors fceeja -doitag?" "Thes^ 
^authors," returned he, "never searched the 
Scriptures for what ought to be believed, but for 
fvhat they did themselves believe. They did 



si l^ECULIARITIES OF ftit ]6rBX]^. 

not consider them as a book, wherein were coiY"' 
tained the doctrines which thej oaghttoreceivej. 
but as a work which might be isiade to authorize 
their own ideas. F^r this- reason, they have* 
corrupted all the mr^anings^, and have pE?t every 
passage to the to^^tu-re, to> make it speak their 
own sense. It is a country whereon people of 
all sects make invasions, and go for piDage ; it 
is a field of battle, where, when tostile nations^ 
meet, they engage, attack and' skirmish in a 
thousand diSerent ways." Stich are some of the 
difficulties, objective and subjective, which lie in? 
the way of ii:^vesligating the Scriptures and dis- 
covering their true sense. They furnish a wide' 
scope to the labors of the Interpreter and im- 
part to his work a dignity and importance, un- 
^surpassed in the entire rang^ of Christian Th««-- 
slogy. 



CHAPTEK XI. 

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE BIBLE". 

From what has been said in the preceding' 
pages we see the necessity of some rules and 
aanons for the- inter ]v>retation of the Bible. None* 
will contend' tl>a^ the Sacred Scriptures are to be* 
interpreted in an arbitrary manner, according- 
to the caprice, the prejudices, the subjective feel- 
ings, or the way ward' fancy of each individuaL 
All who hold to the right of private judgment, 
admit the propriety and necessity of being go^^- 



5^EC!7LIA1MTIi:S <3F THE BIBLE. W 

erned in our investigation of the meaning of 
Ood's word by some acknowledged principles, 
•and hence all allow the necessity of hermeneu- 
tics. The diversity of Biblical interpretation 
iias arisen, not from the rejection of hermeneu- 
tical principles, but either from adopting false 
principles, or from a misapplication of right ones. 
The basis on which our science rests being righ* 
reason and common sense, not only should its 
canons be such as are obviously founded in 
reason, but they should be such as need only to 
to be clearly stated and understood, to be 
wniversally approved. Now the language of the 
Bible is the language of men — such language 
as they employ in communicating their ideas 
and sentiments to one another in the in- 
tercourse of life, and hence, if understood at all, 
its meaning must be ascertained by the same 
means and according to the same laws by which 
all other writi«gs are understood. Accordingly 
it may be laid down as a general preliminary 
principle, that t/ie Bible should be interpreted as 
<>t}ier books are interpreted. The same laws which 
are considered legitimate and proper in regard 
to the explanation of other books, are applica- 
ble to the Bible. I say this is the , general princi- 
ple, but it is subject to certain limitations and 
modifications arising from the peculiarities of the 
Scriptures. The Bible, as we shall see, is a book 
in some respects ^ui generis; as such it has 
its distinctive peculiarities, and these peculiari- 
ties are of such a nature as to necessitate a 
somewhat different treatment from that which 
other books receive at our hand, and give rise to 
canons of interpretation which belong exclusive- 
ly to Sacred Hermeneutics, and are not applies- 



86 PUCUilARITlES OF THE BIBEif. 

"ble to other books. And these limit and modP 
fy the general principle which has been stated. 
1. One of these peculiarities is the fact that 
t^i'e Bible is the inspired' recf)r^ of a supernatu- 
ral revelation: Not only are the trtrths revealedl 
therein of divine origin, but the sacred writers- 
were supernaturally assisted in the composition 
of their books. There is in the Bible a human 
element and a divine element. To the former 
belong the diction^ the phraseology^ the style,, 
tile selection and arrangement of topics" and; 
facts, and the mode of argumentation, of proof 
and illustration. To the latter belong the 
thoughts, sentiments and idea^, so far as these 
claim to have come from God. And with regard 
to the human element,, the- Bible differs from all 
other books in this important respect ; that the 
sacred penmen were under the supernatural 
guidance and superintending care of the Holy 
Spirit, so far at least as to preserve them from 
all error or mistake in their statements of doc- 
trine and of material facts, so that implicit reli- 
ance may he plaxed on the truth of what they 
have written. This is called the dynamic the- 
ory of inspiration, in distinction from the me- 
ehanical or organic theory. It is the theory 
which, since the Reformation, has been substan- 
tially adopted by nearly every respectable writer 
of the Church of England, and with few excep- 
tions, by the orthodox continental writers on 
this subject. It is also believed to be at present 
the prevailing theory in the Eomish Church. 
It has this advantage over the stricter theory of 
verbal inspiration, that it accords best with the 
facts as they lie on the face of the record, and 
©bviates many difficulties created by the otherj. 



Peculiarities of the bibl^:. 87 

which are sure to perplex the student in the in- 
vestigation of the Word of God. The inspira- 
tion of the sacred writers rests mainly on the 
promises of Christ to his Apostles, and on the 
unequivocal testimony of the sacred writers 
themselves, whose veracity and credibility have 
been abundantly proved to be worthy of entire 
and implicit confidence. That the Bible was 
written under the special inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, though not of the nature of a self-evident 
proposition, is nevertheless a proposition which 
has been fully proved by those w^ho have written 
upon the subject, and is most firmly believed by 
all orthodox Christians. It is hence to be re- 
garded as a foundation principle and axiom of 
our science. 

Now the fact that the Bible is the inspired re- 
cord of a supernatural revelation, obviously re- 
quires that we deal with it very differently in 
some respects from the way in which we deal 
with a purely human composition. "As the re- 
cord of supernatural events we must accept 
them as beyond the reach of that historical crit^ 
icism which we w^ould warrantably apply to sim- 
ilar events recorded by a profane historian. 
Take the earlier pages of profane history — such 
for example, as the narrative of Livy of a pre- 
Iiistorie period of the Roman state, and we deal 
with the legends and prodigies which it records, 
as events not trustworthy, and wnth the historic 
an as mistaken. The mythical theory of inter- 
pretation which reduces such histories to the 
level of unhistoric legends; or the naturalistic 
theory of interpretation which brings its super- 
natural events within the circle of common 
thmgs, and the range of common criticism, mayj 



88 PECirUARITIES OF THE BIBIJK. 

in such cases, each assert its claims to a hearing 
and be allowed. Not so with the Scriptures. 
These claim to be an inspired record of a super- 
natural religion. In such a case there must be 
superhuman events embraced in the narrative, 
which are not to be dealt with in the same way 
as events of a similar character recorded in any 
human history might be dealt with, and the au- 
thors of the narrative, because inspired men, 
must be judged of as infallibly true in what 
they assert."^ 

And this remark applies to doctrines as well 
as to events. In a book containing a divine ele- 
ment — a supernatural revelation — we are to ex- 
pect a communication of truths of the greatest 
importance for us to know, which yet lie beyond 
our comprehension — which are too high and too 
vast for human reason to grasp, and which, 
therefore, we are to receive simply, yet impli- 
citly, on faith, without attempting to explain the 
modus of the truths revealed, or without being 
capable of answering a thousand questions 
which may be proposed respecting them. Of 
this character are the doctrine of the Trinitj^ — 
the Incarnation of Christ — his Atonement, 
and the regenerating influences of the Holy 
Spirit. There is in these and kindred truths 
very much that transcends human compre- 
hension; but this furnishes no ground for re- 
jecting the doctrines, or for attempting, as many 
have done, by a forced and unnatural construc- 
tion, to explain away the obvious meaning of the 
passages which assert them. 

2. Another peculiarity of the Bible is, that 

* I^orth British Review, 



PECULIARITIES OF THE BIBLE. 89 

though composed of many treatises, historical, 
biographical, ethical, prophetical, poetical and 
epistola^'v, written by difiterewt authors and at 
different times, it is one organic whole, proceed- 
ing from the same divine pervading mind and 
having throughout a unity of plan, of object, and 
design. This circumstance also necessitates a 
modification of the common principles of inter- 
pretation in order to adjust then to this dis- 
tinctive feature. ''The unity of thought and 
consistency of opinion which in human compo- 
sitions, are found within the limits of one au- 
thor's writings, and which so greatly aid us in 
the interpretation of them, are in Scripture ex- 
tended over the many authors' writings which 
it embraces fi"om Genesis to Revelation, because 
all are the product, not of the same human per^ 
son, but oF the same superhuman inspiration. 
This fact evidently warrants and requires us to 
bring to our aid in the elucidation of the Bible, 
to a greater extent than to profane writings, the 
canon, that the one part of it must be interpre- 
ted by another, and that the doctrines and reve^ 
lations of earlier and later times, the principles 
of past and present dispensations must be equal- 
ly taken into account, as throwing harmonious 
light on its meaning."'^ We are not at liberty 
to infer real contradictions between the differ- 
ent w^riters of the Bible, but where there exist 
apparent discrepancies, we are to resort to 
every reasonable and legitimate mode of recon- 
ciliation, and if these fail us, we are to suspend 
our judgment and wait for further light. 

3. This unity of plan, Avhich under the control- 

# I^oitU British Review. 



90 PEcrLiAHrriEs of TitE bibl^e. 

ing influence of the Spirit of God, pervades the 
whole of the sacred volume, from Genesis to 
Revelation, gives rise to numerous prophecies, 
symbols and types, which bind the several parts 
together, and which being peculiar to this book, 
require special canons of interpretation, not ai 
all applicable to other books. 

4. "Another modification of the general prin- 
ciples of interpretation, when applied to the sa- 
cred volume, arises out of the consideration, that 
necessary and manifest consequences drawn 
from Scripture, are as really a part of Divine 
Eevelation as Scripture itself It is not so in 
.the case of man and of human writings. The 
inferences drawn from human expressions of 
opinion, even though they be necessary and law- 
ful inferences from such expressions, are not al- 
ways to be taken as forming part of the opinions 
of the author. A man is not to be charged with 
the consequences of the opinions he avows, be- 
cause he may not have foreseen or intended the 
consequences. But with God and divine revela- 
tion it is different. He both foresaw and intend- 
ed all that he has revealed, whether in the shape 
of express statement or necessary implication. 
What is virtually contained in Scripture, because 
the lawful and unavoidable deduction from its 
statements, is as really part of the mind of God 
as these statements themselves. This demands 
a minuter and more anxious inquiry into the 
letter of Scripture, and a more thorough investi- 
gation into the dogmatic relations and import of 
each passage, than would be required in the case 
of other writings; and it warrants interpreters to 
educe a more extensive sense and a profounder 



BIBLICAL ClClTtCISJi. 9l 

tneaninfrfrom itsvstatements, than could be safely 
elicited from human oompositions.""^ 

Such are some of the more prominent peculi- 
arities of the Scriptures, which have a greater or 
less inftuence on the general principles of inter- 
pretation, and render a system of Biblical Iler- 
meneutics, applicable especially to them, necessa- 
ry. At the same time, these peculiarities affect 
rather the thouirhts and facts of Scripture than 
the words in which they are clothed, and do not 
necessitate any other method of discovering the 
meaning of the language, than what is pursued 
in regard to the language of any other book. 



CIIAPTEE XII. 

BIBLICAL CHITICIS3I. 



Before proceeding to investigate the mearnnr/ 
of Sacred Scriptures, the attention of the Bibli- 
cal student should first be directed to the text 
itself, in order to ascertain whether it be pure 
or corrupt. By the feed of Scripture is to be un- 
derstood whatever the author has written or 
caused to be written, as an expression of his 
thoughts. We must know what an author has 
written before we undertake to explain its mean- 
ing. Hence Quinctillian justly remarks, 

'•Enarrationem pr?ecedat emendata lectio." 
'*An emended reading precedes interpretation." 

* North British Review, 



92 BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 

Until the invention of the art of printing, the 
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,, 
both in the original languages and in transla- 
tions niade from them into foreign languages, 
were handed down from age to age by means of 
manuscript copies. Of the autographs or origi- 
nal manuscripts of the New Testament no less 
than of the Old, it is universally admitted that 
none are now extant, though there is evidence 
that at least some of them for many years were 
carefully preserved among the ancient Christian 
churches. Their final loss is probably to be at- 
tributed in a great degree to the dreadful perse- 
cutions which raged against the Christians in the 
earlier ages, and to the efforts of their barbar- 
ous persecutors lo destroy all their sacred books. 
All the manuscripts of the scriptures extant, there- 
fore, are but copies of the original. Now anterior 
toany particular investigation of the facts in the 
case, a reasonable presumption exists that many 
various readings have crept into these numer- 
ous transcripts of the Scriptures during the lapse 
of so many centuries. This antecedent presump- 
tion is founded upon the very nature of the 
case, and upon the fact that all other ancient 
books have suffered from this cause. Such is 
the frailty of man, and his liability to error and 
mistake, that in transcribing any book it is im- 
possible entirely to prevent mistakes. The ut- 
most diligence and carefulness will not secure 
immaculate purity and uncorruptness to any 
text. Verbal mistakes will occur in spite of the 
greatest vigilance. And the only way to arrive 
at the true readimr, where more than one exists, 
is to weigh carefully the evidence by which the 
Various readings are respectively sustaiped, aod 



BiBttcAt cKincisln. ^3 

(lie claims they severally present to a favorable 
reception, and to adopt that which on the whole 
f»eems best sup])orted by appropriate evidence. 
.As it is with the works of the ancient heathen 
and gentile writers, so is it with the Biblical wri- 
ters, notwithstanding the extraordinary care ex- 
ercised in their unconupted preservation. No- 
thing could prevent this but a perpetual miracle^ 
of which thereisnotashadovtofevidv nee. There< 
was indeed a time when not only the Jews, but 
learned men in the Christian Church, maintained 
the absolute inviolability of the Scriptures. The 
Buxtorfs and men of that class, gigantic scholars^ 
in their particular line of .*«tudy, did not hesitate 
ff'om the force of prejudice to inaintaifi that not 
only all the Hebrew letters v^'ere the same in all 
manuscripts the world over, but that even the 
vowel points and accents were and always had 
been identically the same from the time of Moses 
down to their day. And when Dr. Mills (1707) 
published his edition of the New Testament with 
yarious reading.^, Whitby^ the celebrated com- 
mentator, sounded the tocsin of alarm, as 
tliough the volume of divine truth were in 
danger of being thrown overbaaid. Investiga- 
tion has, however, dissipated the pleasant dream 
of the Bnxtorfs and allayed the groundless feai'S 
of the Whitbys. In point of fact Providence is 
found to hate left the words of Scripture to the 
same casualties as the writings of uni.nspired men. 
While at the same time the great doctrines 
and duties of revealed religion have, notwith- 
standing, been all sacredly guarded and effectu- 
ally preserved. While the critical investigations^ 
wliich have been made in modern times, have 
r/.-=ulted in bringing to light a vast number of 



©4 BIBLICAL CftmCISM. 

various readings, both of the Old and New Tes- 
tament, a careful exaniination of these varfous 
readings shows that they are of such a nature as 
not to shake in the least our belief in a single 
doctrine or duty of Christianity; at the same 
time it imposes on the Biblical student the duty 
of giving sufficient attention to this subject to be 
able to sift the evidence adduced in support of 
different readings and to form an independent 
judgment as to the true reading of the original, 
lliat depart?3ient of Sacred Literature which 
has relation to the purity of the text is called 
Biblical Criticism. This expression is often used 
in a more extended sense, so as to embrace 
Biblical Interpretation also. But the difference 
between the two is capable of being made per- 
fectly intelligible to the most ordinary capacity. 
The object of Biblical Criticism (?*. ^., of lower, 
special, verbal criticism,) is the genuineness oi 
the text itse(f; the object of Biblical Interpreta- 
tion is the sense or meardng of the text. The on^ 
is conversant with the mere letter of Scripture; 
the other with its import. It is the province o€ 
the former to ascertain what an author has 
written, and of the latter to determine what h,e 
intends by it. Criticism, therefore, in the order 
of nature, precedes interpretation. The former 
is properly introductory to the latter, and serves 
as a basis for it. And the nearer one comes by 
the application of judicious critical laws to the 
very words of an author, the nearer he will ha 
to a correct interpretation of them. The appli- 
cation of textual criticisin to the treatment of 
the Bible is quite as ne^i.es&ary and useful as to 
that of any ancient writer whatever. Indeed 
it is more important and bene^cial with regard 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 95 

to the former in proportion to the greater im- 
portance of its contents. Accordingly we find 
that Criticism has always been held in high esti- 
mation by all truly learned and scientific theo- 
logians ; and those skilled in it have always been 
reckoned in the first class of divines. Such 
were Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysos^ 
tom. Jerome, and others among the ancients. 
Augustine declared it as his opinion, that the 
talents of those who sought to understand the 
Scriptures, ought in the first place to be exerr 
cised upon the correction oP the text. 

The sources of Biblical Criticism are — Manur 
scripts, or written copies of the Scriptures, both 
ancient and modern — Ancient versions or trans- « 
lations into various languages — the writings and 
remains of those early ecclesiastical writers or 
Church fathers, who have quoted the Scriptures 
— Parallels, or repeated passages — and Critical 
conjecture. The last of these, however, has no 
place in the criticism of the New Testament. 
There is no need of it there. The materials for 
procuring a correct, unadulterated text, are 
abundant. Critical conjecture, therefore, is ren= 
dered superfluous by the very copious array of 
proper resources; and hence none of the ci'iti- 
cal editors of the New^ Testament sanction the 
adoption of conjectural emendations into the 
text. In reference to this portion of the Sacred 
volume, the authority of manuscripts, versions, 
and quotations by the fathers, is paramount; 
and in no case ought the words of the New Tesr 
tament to be altered from mere conjecture. The 
internal probability in favor of a particular read- 
ing is only taken into account, when it is at the 
game time accompanied with at least an equal 



96 BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 

amount of external authority. But with regard 
to the Hebrew Scriptures the case is different; 
and here there are various reasons against the 
ioial exclusion of conjectural emendations. The 
instances of accidental error in the transcribing 
of Hebrew manuscripts are far more numerous 
than in the transcribing of the Greek manu- 
scripts, notwithstanding the extraordinary care 
observed by the Jewish Scribes. The long peri- 
od, also, which elapsed between the time when 
the books of the Old Testament, especially the 
Pentateuch, were composed, and the time when 
even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts now extant 
were written, maj^ have occasioned in vai-ious 
*]jlaces the genuine reading to be entirely lost. 
And the circuhistahoe that all the Hebrew 
manuscripts now in existence belong to one edi- 
tion, family or recension, viz.^ the Masoretic-, 
renders the probability that in various places 
the genuine reading is contained in no known 
Hebrew manuscript still greater. The meanSj 
therefore, of correcting the text of the Old Tes- 
tament from authority, are far less ample than 
in the New Testament, and consequently con^ 
jectural emendations may be allowable in the 
former, though not in the latter. Instances 
occur where the very exigency of the case {exe^ 
c/entia loci) requires the aid to be derived from 
conjecture. In some instances the received 
reading is such as w^e can not conceive it possi- 
ble that the Sacred penman could have written; 
it bears on the face of it evident marks of cor- 
ruption. In such cases, the amount of external 
evidence in favor of such a reading as- this is 
comparatively of little importance. A single 
version may be conclusive. Nay, the exigency 



BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 97 

may be so strong, that a reading which will meet 
it in a satisfactory manner may have irix^sistibl^. 
claims to be received into the text of a critical 
edition, though sanctioned by no existing manu- 
script or version. At the same time, this liberty 
should doubtless be taken with extreme pru- 
dence and caution, and should be exercised only 
in cases where all other means of reconciliation 
iail. Many conjectural emendatioxis proposed 
by Bishops Lowth, Blaney, Ilorsley, Dr. Kenni- 
cutt and other distinguished Biblical scholars of 
the 18th Century^ ha^'e since been shown to be 
entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable, in con- 
sequence of a more thorough method of study- 
ing the Hebrew language inaugurated by Ge- 
senius and other German scholars. 

The genuineness or spuriousness of an ancient 
book or passage is a question of fact to be deter- 
mined on the ground of external and internal evi- 
dence. By th^e former is meant the testimony 
of corapeteut icitnesses ; by the latter, the testi- 
mony arising from certain tokens or indications 
observable in the contents, language, style, and 
character of the book or passage in question, 
which show it to be in all probability the pro- 
duction of a certain author, or at least of a cer- 
tain age. The following fundamental laws of 
evidence will show the relative importance of 
external or historical, and internal critical evi- 
dence. 

1. The genuineness of a book, passage, or 
word, whether profane or sacred, inspired or un- 
inspired, is to be established by evidence, either 
external or internal, or both. When these two 
species of evidence coincide in support of the 



98 BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 

affirmative, then the conclusion is irresistible 
that it is genuine. 

2. If either of these be wholly wanting, still 
the book, passage, or word, may be shown to be 
genuine by the other alone, provided it be clear 
und indisputable. 

3. But if they disagree, and contradict each 
other, then the following laws apply : — 1. If the 
internal evidence be clearly and unequivocally 
against the genuineness of the book, passage, or 
word, then no amount of external evidence can 
prove it genuine ; e. g. if it contains anacronisms, 
or manifest allusions to persons and things which 
did not exist until after the time of the reputed 
author ; or if the passage as it stands affords no 
intelligible meaning, or one wholly incongruous 
or unsuitable ; or if it makes a prudent, consis- 
tent, and conscientious wn^iter contradict him- 
self. With regard to the last point, however, a 
profane writer may sometimes, in a long dis- 
course or treatise, say something inconsistent 
with or contradictory to what he said before ; 
but this cannot be admitted in regard to the 
sacred writers. Not only must they be consis- 
tent with themselves, but with one another. We 
may find apparent discrepancies in their writ- 
ing, but can impute no real contradictions to 
them. 2. But if the external evidence be clearly 
and decidedly against the genuineness of a pas- 
gage, then no amount of internal evidence can 
establish its genuineness. In such a case inter- 
nal criticism is of small value in determining 
what an author might have said, or might not 
have said. A spurious passage may be surrepti- 
tiously introduced and fitted to the context as 
well as a genuine passage. It may be so dove- 



BIBI^ICAL CRITICISM. 90 

tailed into the text as to render it nearly if not 
quite impossible to detect it. When the genu- 
ineness of a particular passage of a sacred writer 
its disputed., therefore, the proper questions to be 
asked are. Is the passage found in the manu- 
scripts, especially the earlier and more ancient 
manuscripts? Is it contained in the ancient 
versions? Ls it quoted by the early fathers, 
where from its relevancy and appropriateness, 
we should have expected it to be quoted or al- 
luded to? Is its genuineness admitted in criti- 
cal editions of the Scriptures? If the answer 
to these questions must be in the affirmative, 
then its genuineness is indisputable. But if, on 
thQ contraiy, the passage is not found in the 
ancient manuscripts; if it is not contained in 
tiie ancient translations; if it is not quoted or 
alluded to by the fathers, when it would have 
been appropriate in them to quote or refer to it: 
if its g(^nuineness is not recognized by the best 
and most reliable critics, then we may infer tlial 
it is spurious, no matter what iiiay be said in it;* 
favor on tJie ground of internal evidence. 

The necessity of examining the original au- 
thorities for the purpose of textual criticisni, 
oven if it were in the power of the student to do 
so. is now entirely obvia«ted by the researches of 
learned divines who have embodied the result^ 
of their laborious investigations in critical edi- 
tions of the Scriptures. Griesbach (1774-5) first 
applied these results to the correction of the 
text of the New^ Testament, and for this purpose 
classified his authorities into three recensions or 
families. These were subsequently reduced by 
Scholz to two. But the whole system of clas- 
«ification introduced bv Griesbach, after sutler- 



100 BIBLICAL CRITrcISM^, 

in^ sererely from repeated blows, has been cotd- 
polled to give way before the new and popular 
theory of Lachman (1831-42), who professes 
mainly to exhibit the text as contained in the 
oi^ental manuscripts and versions, or as it warf 
f'eceived in the East in the fourth century; but 
especially of Tischendorf (1541), who gives the 
text according to the authority ol' the more an- 
cient witnesses. Of his work in its later edi- 
tions, Alford remarks, "^I cannot but regard it a^ 
tlif^ most valuable contribution which has been" 
yet made to the revision of the text of the Xew 
Testciment. And I believe tliat all future texts- 
arranged on critical principles, will be found to 
approach very closely to his." These principles 
have been followed by Alford, whose work on 
the Greek Testament, both for critical and exe- 
|:etical purposes, is undoubtedly the most con- 
venient and valuable for theological students 
and ministers which has yet appeared. No ap- 
plication has yet been made of the critical ma; 
ierials collected from Hebrew manuscripts and 
(?)ther sources, by Kennicutt, Pe Rossi, and 
others, to the emendation of the text of the Old 
Testament. A critical edition of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, with a revised text, is therefore still 
a desideratum. The nearest approach to such a 
work will be found in a thin octavo volume 
from the pen of Dr. Samuel Davidson (LSSoj, 
entitled ^'The Hebrew text of the Old Testament^ 
revised from critical sources," which in a conve- 
nient form exhibits, but without the text, all 
the important variotis readings, and the authori- 
ties for each. 



CRAM!tfATICO- HISTORICAL SENtSE, 101 



CHAPTER XIIT. 

THE GIlAMMATICX)-niSTORICAL SENSE — USAGE 
OF WORDS. 

In the study of the Bible as in that of any 
other book our aim should be to get at the trun 
sense and meaning of the Sacred writers. Di- 
vine Revelation consists not in the words of 
Scripture, but in the thoughts, sentiments and 
facts, which are communicated to us through 
the medium of the words. This idea was clear- 
ly expressed long ago b}^ Jerome when he said, 
*-Let us not imagine that the Gospel consists in 
the words of Scripture, bat in the sense."* The 
sense is the nut; the letter is the mere shell 
which encloses the nut. Hence the legal maxim, 

Qui hff'.rit in litera^ heerit in cortice.. 
^'Ile who sticks in the letter, sticks in the bark." 

He who considers merely the letter of an in- 
strument, goes but skin deep into its meaning. 
The sense of a word, phrase, or proposition, 
may in general be stated to be that meaning 
which appears to be the natural, obvious and 
customary meaning of the language, as ascer- 
tained from usage, irrespective of extrinsic con- 
siderations. This is called the grammatical sense. 
In a majority of instances this is the true and 
exact sense intended by the writer. But it is 
not always the case, not merely because the lan- 
guage employed may be ambiguous and fairly 
susceptible of different interpretations equally 

* "Nee putemus in verbis scripturarum evangelium 
esae. Bed in sensu,'* Comment, in Epist. ad Gal. cap. 1 . 



102 GRAMMATICO-HISTORIGAL SENSlJ--^ 

nccordant with usage and grain tn^r ,* butbecatis^ 
an author may have iinintentionally expressed 
himself improperly or loosely. He may haver 
carelessly or ignorantly chosen a ivrong word or 
words to express his meaning, or assigned a 
wrong position to them in the sentence ; or he 
may have employed words in a dilfereiit sense 
from the customary one — in a technical, provin- 
cial or foreign sense, or in one entirely new, in 
order to convey an idea peculiar to the system 
of religion or philosophy which he has embraced. 
It is frequently necessary, therefore, in order to 
arrive at the true sense, to take into considera- 
tion a variety of extrinsic circumstances. Some 
knowledge is requisite concerning the age and 
country in which the writer lived, his edu- 
cation, temperament, style of writing, his reli- 
gion and various surroundings, and the preva- 
lent opinions, usages and customs of the times. 
We must understand the design and scope of 
his writings, the logical connexion of his thoughts; 
in tine, it is necessary to attend to all those his- 
torical circumstances and considerations, and to 
those subjective influences which woukl be like- 
ly to affect or throw light upon his meaning. 
This is Cixlled the histonca I sense. The following- 
example will illustrate the difference between 
the grammatical and the historical sense. The 
Greek word aiM* grammatically considered, 
simply denotes time, age, but if we consult the 
history of Jewish dogmas we find that the phra- 
ses cdu'i cvrot and octuv o f/^ixxuv this world or age and 
the world or age to come. (Ileb. 2 : 5, 6 : 5.) mean the 
time present, and the time subsequent to the 
advent of the Messiah; in other words the Jew- 
ish and Christian Dispensations. The first would 



USAGE OF WORDS. 103 

be the interpretation according to general usage, 
the latter, according to the usage of a particular 
age and people — the one classical and grammati- 
cal, the other historical and Jewish. But 
though the grammatical sense is in itself distinct 
from the historical, there is no contradiction be- 
tween them. In a majority of instances they 
are perfectly identical, and when we have ascer- 
tained the one, we have determined the other. 
And where there is a formal difference between 
them, they still uniformly coincide. For no his- 
torical interpretation can be admitted which vio- 
lates or sets aside and contravenes the gram- 
matical. The true sense is the only one in every 
case; and this is made out by the application of 
the laws of universal grammar, modified, if need 
be, by historical circumstances. As grammati- 
cal interpretation must lie at the basis of all sound 
exegesis, the attention of the student in the in- 
vestigation of Scripture should be first directed 
to the customary signification of the words em- 
ployed, whether singly or in combination. But 
if he stop here, he will in very many cases miss 
the real sense. Hence we find that many Com- 
mentators particularly among the Germans, have 
excelled as verbal critics and thrown much 
light on the diction and phraseology of Scrip- 
ture, while at the same time, from disregarding 
the logical connexion, from over-looking impor- 
tant extrinsic considerations, or from want of 
the ability or disposition to enter into the spirit 
of the sacred writers and to sympathize with 
them in their religious feelings and sentiments, 
they have entirely failed to comprehend and 
exhibit the true spiritual and profound import 
of their writings. Grotius, for example, was a 



104 GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL SENSE — 

profound scholar and excellent verbal critic, b«t 
beyond this he did not go. Hence it has been 
justly said of him that "the shell he took off with 
wonderful dexterity ; but the nut he seldom 
tasted, and still more seldom relished." The 
only true method of interpretation therefore, is 
the grammatico-historical This compound term 
is used to indicate that both grammatical and 
historical considerations are employed in making 
out the sense. The basis on which this method 
of interpretation rests is the use of the language 
(usus loquendi) employed in the expression of 
ideas. It may be laid down as a fundamental 
principle of Interpretation, that use is ike only 
arbiter of the vieaning of ivords. In other terms 
the signification of words depends on the usage 
of those who employ it. " tJsus est jus et norma 
loquendi^ Use founded on human institutions 
and customs has constituted the coniaexion be- 
tween words and ideas. Words have not the 
particular meaning or meanings attached to 
them from nature or necessity, but only from 
human institutions and customs, by which a 
connexion has been conventionally formed be- 
tween them and the ideas they are employed to 
convey. But though this connexion was in its 
commencement and institution arbitrary, yet 
being once established by custom, it has become 
necessary ; and hence we are not at liberty to 
give what sense we please to a word either in 
writing or in interpreting. The fact that usage 
has attached any particular meaning to a word, 
like any other historical fact, is to be proved by 
adequate testimony. But once established, the 
meaning can no more be changed at pleasure or 
denied than any other fact whatever, , 



USAGE OF WORDS. 105 

The usage of language is affected by many 
things; by the time in which the writer lived, 
the religion he professed, the sect or party to 
which he belonged, his peculiar style and mode 
of expressing himself, the habits of ordinary 
life and the political institutions of the countiy. 
For the sense in which words are used, either 
originates from or is modified by all these ; and 
thus the same word may signify one thing in 
ordinary life, another in religion, a third in the 
schools of philosophers, and a fourth as used by 
a particular w^riter. The same word or expres- 
sion may convey one idea when employed by a 
Heathen, another when used by a Jew, and still 
another when employed by a Christian. It may 
have a classic sense, and a Jewish sense, and a 
Christian sense. Thus the words victim, sacrifice^ 
law, in the Old Testament are often employed in 
a sense which differs from that of the same 
words in the New Testament. The verb to p€7'- 
ceive in common life means to feel or experience; 
in philosophy, to form on idea in the mind ; and 
among the academic sect it meant to knoiv a 
thing with certainty, in opposition to mere conjec- 
ture, ^o purification, flesh, regeneration, &c., differ 
in meaning as employed by a Heathen, a Jew, 
or a Christian. Usage, accordingly, may be di- 
vided into general, particular^ and peculiar. Gene- 
ral usage is that which is commonly employed 
by writers in the language; particular usage is 
that which is confined to a particular age or 
portion of the country wdiere the language is 
spoken; and peculiar usage is that w^hich is 
limited to an individual, and forms a distinctive 
feature of his style. As an example of the last, 
we have the use of « x^r^f, the ivord^ by St. John, 



106 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION — 

?.s designating the compound person of the Mes- 
siah, or God incarnate. We learn the usage in 
living languages from conversation and personal 
intercourse; in the dead languages, as the He- 
brew and Greek, it is ascertained from various 
sources, such as the writer himself, contempo- 
rary writers, Scholiasts and Glossographers, an- 
cient translations, made when the languages 
were still living, kindred dialects, &g. But it is 
not at all necessary for the critical student of 
the Bible to dig into all these deep mines. This 
labor is in a great degree saved by the use of 
good dictionaries, grammars and concordances. 
He has but to provide himself with such works 
as the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations, 
Robinson's Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, Conant's 
Rodiger's Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Robin- 
son's Lexicon and Winer's Grammar of the New 
Testament and the Englishman's Hebrew and 
Greek Concordances, and he is thoroughly equip- 
ped for determining the usage both of the Old 
and New Testament writers. The mere Eng- 
lish scholar will derive great assistance from the 
use of such works as Brown's Dictionary of the 
Bible, or some other similar work, and Cruden's 
Concordance. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



LAWS OF INTERPRTATION — MEANING OP 
WORDS. 

Having shown in the preceding chapter that 
the Gra7nmatico- historical sense (i. e. the gram- 
matical sense modified when necessary by the 



■^- 



MEANING OF WORDS. 107 

historical,) is the true sense ef Scripture, we are 
prepared to lay down the following: 

CANON I. 

The language of Scripture is to he interpreted ac- 
cording to its grammatical import ; and the sense of 
any expression^ proposition^ or declaration is to be de- 
termined by the words employed. 

It was the just remark of Melancthon that 
" Scripture cannot be understood theologically 
unless it is understood grammatically." In other 
words, no one can be a good theologian, who 
does not interpret Scripture according to its 
grammatical sense. The reason of this is obvi- 
ous. Theology is nothing but the grammatical 
sense of Scripture classified and arranged in 
systematic order. Theology is not one thing 
and the meaning of Scripture another; but the 
sense of Scripture is the whole of theology. 
Luther also truly observed, that " the knowledge 
of the sense can be derived from nothing but 
the knowledge of the words." As soon, there- 
fore, as we learn the meaning of the words of 
any passage of Scripture, singly and in combi- 
nation, we possess the knowledge of the sense 
of that passage. Any system of theology is 
consequently sound just so far as it accords with 
and is based upon the grammatical or true sense 
of Scripture, and no farther. Hence there is a 
necessary and most intimate connexion between 
a bonus textuarius and a bonus theologus. Plain and 
obvious as this Canon of Interpretation is, it is 
constantly violated by those who bring their 
pre-conceived opinions to bear upon the Scrip- 
tures, and by forced and unnatural or frigid in- 
terpretation, make them speak in accordance 



108 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION—- 

with those opinions, and thus attempt to banish 
from the New Testament all its peculiar and dis- 
tinctive doctrines, such as the Deity of Christ, 
the Atonement, etc. Not only is this violation 
chargeable upon the German Rationalists, who 
eliminate from the Bible every thing supernatu- 
ral, and whose systems of theology are any 
tiling but scriptural, but also upon many who 
claim to occupy a higher position. Such, they 
say, cannot be the meaning of this passage, and 
such cannot be the meaning of that passage, be- 
cause it would not be in accordance with the 
truth. The doctrine enunciated by the words 
of Scripture interpreted according to their obvi- 
ous and grammatical import is not true ; there- 
fore such cannot be their meaning. These men 
consequently put a forced and arbitrary sense, 
unauthorized by usage, on the words, so as to 
make them speak in accordance with the opin- 
ion they may liave previously formed on the 
subject to which they relate, independently and 
irrespective of vScriptui-e. Few books perhaps 
abound more with instances of this error than 
the Improved Version of the New Testament, 
published by the English Unitarians in 1808. 
For example, John 1 : 2. the word was in the he- 
ffinyiirig with God, is thus rendered in the note; 
'' Before, he entered upon his ministry, he was 
fully instructed by intercourse wuth God in the 
nature and extent of his commission." And 
again at v. 14, Ayid the word was made (or became) 
Jlesh, i. e. " a mere mortal man." Again, John 
6 : 62, WJiat then if ye shall see the JSom of man 
going up vjhere he was before^ i. e. says the note, 
'' What would you then do, if I should still far- 
thei' advance into the sulDJect of my mission, 



Meaning of avords. 109 

And reveal truths which would be still more re- 
mote from your apprehension and more offen- 
sive to your prejudices.' These examples fur- 
nish striking instances of the abuse of reason, 
and an utter disregard of all sound hermeneuti* 
cal principles, in the interpretation of Scripture. 
Other religionists adopt certain notions of 
n^od from their own fancies, and then make this 
character of him their standard of the meaning 
of Scripture. Fanatics in every age have also 
perverted the Scriptures in the same way. Our 
v'anon requires us to derive our theological opin- 
ions from the words of Scripture fiiithfully and 
conscientiously interpreted, and not to bring 
our previously formed opinions to the Scriptures, 
and put upon them, under the influence of pre- 
judice, a meaning not warranted by the words. 
And this we are to do irrespective of the truth 
or the erroneousness of those opinions : for a 
jicntiment may be true in itself and conformable 
to scripture, and yet nob contained in the par- 
ticular passage under examination. 

CANON II. 

//I all its commxiyiications the Bible has ove yncaning 
to convey^ and no more ; consequerdh/ no word can have 
j/iore than one fixed meanirtg in each occurrence. 

There are few words in any language, if we 
except the names of persons and things, or 
proper nouns, which have not more significa- 
tions than one. Custom has, by degrees, at- 
tached various meanings to words, in order to 
facilitate the acquisition of language, by pre- 
venting the infinite multiplicity of terms. But, 
while words may have a variety of meanings, 
they can not have this variety at the same time; 



110 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION — 

and in the same place. In every instance of its 
occurrence each word in a passage has but one 
meaning, and every passage has but one sense; 
and, consequently, there can be but one inter- 
pretation of it genuine and correct. The words 
employed may be used in a literal or in a figur- 
ative sense; in their primary or in a secondary 
meaning; but not in both at the same time. 
The whole passage may be interpreted as his- 
tory or as allegory ; but as it can not be both, so 
the interpretation can not be double. 

All men, in the daily intercourse of life, and 
in their writings, attach but one meaning to the 
words they employ, unless they design to speak 
in enigmas, and are playing a game at riddles 
or double entendres. No prudent, fair-minded, 
and conscientious person in common life, who, 
whether he exj)resses his thoughts orally, or 
commits them to writing, intends that a divers- 
ity of meanings should be attached to what he 
says or writes, and hence his hearers or readers 
do not affix to it any other than the single sense 
which they suppose he intended to conyey, 
Now, if such is the practice in all fair and up- 
right intercommunication between man and 
man, can it be supposed that the Deity, in his 
communications with his creatures, would der 
part from this simple and truthful method ? 
The Bible was written, under Divine guidance 
and inspiration, by men. in the language of men^ 
and for the use of men : it is to be presumed, 
therefore, that it would be written in such a 
manner as to be intelligible to men, — as other 
books are written, — in accordance with the com- 
mon laws and usage of language. But other 
books are not written with a double or threefold 



3IEANING OF WORDS. Ill 

meaning. In them we expect to find one clear, 
definite, and intelligible meaning, and no more. 
The antecedent presumption that the Scriptures 
were written in the same way, is so strong and 
violent, that it can be overcome only by evi- 
dence so manifest and indisputable as to amount 
to a demonstration. The perspicuity of the 
Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of 
sense, in order to render intelligible to man the 
plan and purpose of their great Author, which 
could never be comprehended if a multiplicity 
of senses were admitted. "There can be," says 
Ernesti, " no certainty at all in respect to the 
interpretation of any passage of Scripture, un- 
less a kind of necessity compel us to affix a par- 
ticular sense to a word, which sense 7}uist he 
oney The words of Scripture, then, like the 
words employed in profane writings, have, and 
can have, but one determinate signification at- 
tached to them in each and every instance of 
their occurrence, if the Bible is what it purports 
to be — a revelation from God! A single sense 
must be chosen, and it is the proper business of 
the interpreter to discover what that is. In do- 
ing this, it may often be a matter of reasonable 
doubt which of two or more interpretations is 
the right one. But they can not all, nor any 
two of them, be right. If we approve of one, 
we must, if they really difier, reject the others. 
The breach of this canon is most derogatory to 
the Scriptures, and destructive of all distinct 
views of divine truth. But plain and essential 
as it is, in one form or another it is more fre- 
quently violated than any other principle in the 
whole science of Ilermeneutics. The piactice 
of attaching more than one meaning to each 



112 LAAVS OF INTERPRETATION — • 

passage of Scripture may be traced back to a re- 
mote age. It sprung, indeed, from tlie schools 
of the Jewish Eabbies, and passed from them, 
in early times, into the Christian church. It- 
was a Rabbinic maxim, that, "on every point of 
the Scriptures bang suspended mountains of 
sense." The Talmud says, "Asa hammer sep- 
arates into many particles, so each text of Scrip- 
ture has many meanings." Again; "God so 
gave the Law to Moses, that a thing can be 
shewn to be clean and unclean in forty-nine 
different ways." The Rabbies even invented a 
science or ai't called Caballa, which, by chang- 
ing, disjoining, or transposing letters, or by cal- 
culating their value as arithmetical signs, elic- 
ited worlds of profound mystery. According to 
this system, letters instead of being taken in 
their alphabetical force, so as, in their combina- 
tion to represent woi-ds, which words are, in 
their turn, signs of ideas, indicate, by peculi- 
arities in their own structure and position, a 
mystical sense aside from or explanatorj' of the 
sense expressed by the words to which they 
belong. From the Jews this method of inter 
pretation, so far as respects a multiplicity of 
senses, passed into the Christian church, being 
suggested, probably, by the variety of interpre- 
tations given to ambiguous passages, more than 
one of which appeared probable, and were re- 
commended by a sentiment of respect for their 
authors. Nor was it confined in early times to 
minds of an inferior order, or to men of little 
information; but it was adopted by such men as 
Origen, Augustine, and Jerome. These men, 
and others like them, held that, in addition to 
tlieir grammatical and obvious sense^ the Scrips 



MEANING OF WORDS. 113 

lures have an occult, mystical, or allegorical 
sense. Some of the ancients subdivided this 
occult or mystical sense into the allegorical, the 
tropological (or moral), and the anagogical-; 
hence these well-known lines: 

'^ Litter a gesta docet ; quid credas Allegoria; 

Moralis quod agas ; quo tendas Anagogia." 

By the allegorical sense they meant the mystical 
sense, which has reference to the church upon 
earth ; by the tropological^ that which refers to 
moral conduct; and by the anagogical^ that 
which refers to the church in its glorified state 
above. Somewhat after this fashion are the 
three different senses which Emanuel Sweden- 
borg attached to every word of Scripture in 
every instance of its occurrence, viz., the literal^ 
the moral or spiritual, and the heavenly. In the 
Roman Catholic Church the practice of giving 
various senses to the same passage of Scripture 
has prevailed to a very great extent. Thus, 
Pope Innocent III. (A. D. 1216), who excom- 
municated King John of England, and threat- 
ened even the Emperor of Constantinople, 
maintained that the two great lights spoken of 
in Gen. I., signified mystically the office oi Pope 
and the office of Kinrj — the greater light meaning 
the former office, and the lesser light the latter ; 
so that as the light which rules the day is su- 
perior to the light which rules the night, the 
dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of 
King. This is merely a specimen of the kind 
of interpretation which has been common in 
that church. But Protestants have not been 
behind the Catholics in their invention of a 
multitude of senses. The earlier Reformers 
were more free from extravagant fancies of this 
8 



114 LAWS OF INTEKPRETATION — 

sort : but Cocceius, a celebrated Dutch divine of 
Leyden, (1669), advocated the principle that 
all the possible meanings of a word in the Scriptures 
are to he united ; in other words, whatever a word 
may mean it does mean. A single noun could 
thus have twenty different significations in the 
same place, and refer to twenty different things. 
He held that the whole of the Old Testament 
was an anticipatory history of the Christian 
church, containing a full recital of every thing 
which should happen to the end of time. Even 
the Lord's Prayer, according to him, is a proph- 
ecy, and its six parts denote six great epochs in 
history. Every good man in the Old Testament 
is a type of Christ or his Apostles; and every 
bad man a type of the devil or the unbelieving 
Jews. By the learning and influence of Coc- 
ceius, a powerful party was raised up in the 
Protestant Church in favor of this groundless 
and absurd principle. They pressed each word 
of a text until every idea which, by mere possi- 
bility, it might contain, etymologically or other- 
wise, was forced out; for, by this operation, the 
pregnant sense of Scripture, as they termed it, and 
the holy emphasis of its expressions, which had 
heretofore been neglected, could alone be dis- 
covered and received in all its fullness. John 
Bunyan, whose beautiful and nearly faultless 
allegory of the Pilgrim's Progress, there are few 
to be found w^ho have not read with delight, 
wrote a treatise, in which he undertook to show 
that not only the temple, with its solemn ritual 
and impressive service, was significant of future 
good things, but that even its minutest parts 
were in like manner significant. The vases, the 
ceusorS} the trays, the snuffers, jea, the SQufiT 



MEANING OF WORDS. 115 

itself of the lamps — all had an iniportant spir- 
itual meaning. We find much of a similar char- 
iicter in Witsius on the Covenants, and other 
worJks of a like nature. Siich schemes of inter- 
pretation, however edifying they may be to 
some people, are to be utterly r«?jected, for they 
destroy all certainty of interpretation. They 
take the ground from beneath our feet-, and 
make the Scriptures a nose of ^yax, which a man 
may tura into whatever shape his fancy or im- 
agination may suggest. Later and more sober 
writers, it is true, have disavowed these extreme 
views, but without atendoning the principle of 
a double sens<?. This is still hekl by a large 
number of commentators and divines, though 
%vith considera^vile diversity as to the extent of 
its ajDplication. It is generally confined to the 
allegories and Parables of Scripture, to the 
Book of Pi^alms generally, and to those passages 
from the prophetical and other writings of the 
Old Testament, which aro q^uoted or silluded to 
in the New T^siassaent with reference to Christ 
and the Church. 

The Double sayise may be thus explained. I€ 
we ascribe to any passage of Scripture a literal, 
obviou.s^ historical sense^, luad interpret it as con- 
veying and intended to convey the meaning 
which the words naturally seem to convey, 
;and yet at the same time a&eribe to the same 
w^ords another and dissimilar meaning as der 
signedly referring to another person or event>, 
or as relating to another subject, and intended 
to be convej'ed by those same woMs, we then 
make out a double sense. Take the following 
examples : If the second Psalm is interpreted 
jss SL description of ike <i(?ro;cMition of J)a4'i4 o«^ 



116 LAWS or INTERPRET Af TON— 

of Solomon on the hill of Zion, and all that f^ 
there said be literally and historically applied to 
him ; and if then we go on to find in the word^ 
of the same Psalm a secondary sense as pro- 
phetically descriptive of the Messiah, or of be- 
lievers, we give them a double sense. Again : 
If we give to the language of the sixteenth 
Psalm a grammatical and historical interpreta- 
tion as designedly applicable to David and de- 
scriptive of his feelings on the bed of sickness 
and of his faith that God would again restore 
him to health; and then regard the language 
as designedly and prophetically descriptive iri 
another sense of the resurrection of Christ from 
the dead, we manifestly give to the language a 
double sense. Once more: If we interpret the 
forty-fifth Psalm as an epithalamium or nuptial 
song, composed on the occasion of Solomon's 
marriage with a foreign princess, and as refer- 
ring primarily and historically to that event : 
and then proceed to show that a secondary, 
deeper and mystical sense, distinct from and in- 
dej^endent of this, runs through the whole, by 
virtue of which the words are found to be de- 
signedly descriptive of the King Messiah and of 
his spiritual union with the Church, then tve 
give to the Psalm a double sense. 

Now the question arises, is such a system of 
interpretation admissible according to the ac- 
knowledged laws of language ? To this question^ 
as it seems to me, the answer must be in the 
negative. If the principle be admitted in re- 
gard to these and other Psalms of a like char- 
acter, why not w^ith regard to all the Psalms ? 
And if applicable in regard to one part of Scrip- 
turej why not to' every part ? AYho shall decide 



MEANING OF WORDS. 117 

within what limits the principle shall be con- 
fined ? And if we are at liberty to invent a 
secondary sense equally true and perha^Ds more 
important than the primary, why may we not 
invent a third sense and a fourth ? Eut would 
not this destroy all certainty in the use of lan- 
guage ? " When we receive a letter on an im- 
portant subject from a friend," says Dr. J. Pye 
♦Smith, " we read it with a view to ascertain its 
meaning, to know the real sentiments and in- 
tention of the writer, and having obtained this 
we are satisfied. That which it is our duty in 
all cases to seek after is the true, genuine, in- 
tended sense of the word of God, the mind of 
the Spirit, and this must be ultimately and es- 
sentially one." 

It is true there are kinds of composition in 
s^vhich an apparent sense is presented, which 
every intelligent reader sees is only an envelope 
for another, ^nd it is this other meaning which 
is the author's real design, his one and true in- 
tention. In allegories, for instance, the appar- 
ent meaning is not what the author intends ; 
this is a mere covering under which is concealed 
the true meaning. The sense is still but one, 
and the interpretation one. Allegories, there- 
fore, form no exception to our Canon. Nor are 
Parables an exception. These are either alle- 
gorical^ and subject to all the laws which applv 
to allegories; or they are historical and designed 
to illustrate and enforce some important moral 
truth or duty, and in this case, are susceptible of 
only one meaning like any oth^r historical narra- 
tive or fictitious story. And yet perhaps there is no 
portion of Scripture to which the principle of a 
double sense has been more frequently applied 



118 LA^g or n^TERi^RETATIOK'— ^ 

than to the parables. Thus Dodd and others 
tell us that by the priest and lerite in the para- 
ble of the Good Samaritan, are intended natural 
Religion and the Mosaic dispensation, and by 
the two pei>ce given to the Innkeeper are meant 
the two Christian Sacraments. Others tell us^ 
that the man travelling from Jerusalem to Jeri- 
cho who fell among thieves, represents Adam 
and his posterity travelling throtrgh the wilder- 
ness of this world, who are robbed and wounded 
by Satan; that the priest and levite who passed 
by without helping him, represent the law which 
cannot save the sinner^ and good works and ce- 
remonial observances, which cannot help him ; 
that the Good Samaritan is Christ; that the oil 
and wine are the forgiveness and grace of the 
Gospel; and that the gratuitous work of helping 
the wounded man is a lively emblem of the 
Eedeemer's gratuitous work in respect to sin- 
ners. Now all this maybe very evangelical, but 
is it the true sense of the parable ? 

Ambiguity is not a double sense. A passage 
may be equivocal in its terms, and even design- 
edly so^ and yet have but one real meaning in 
the mind and intention of the speaker or writer. 
We find this designed and studied ambiguity in 
sonie of the heathen oracles, which were so 
framed that the event, whatever it might be, 
would verify the pretended prediction, and thus 
sustain the character of the oracle. The well- 
known Delphic oracle '' Aio te Eomanos vincere 
posse," is an example of this, which may be 
rendered, with equal propriety, that the Ro- 
mans would conquer Pyrrhus, or Pyrrhus the 
Eomans. The words of our Saviour addressed 
to the Jews (John 2 : 19,) were equivocal, and 



MEANING OP WORDS. 119 

admitted of two dififerent interpretations. " De- 
stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise 
it up." This is alleged by Olshausen, Bush and 
others, to be an instance of a double sense. Eut 
such is not the case, if the inspired apostle is to 
be regarded as an authoritative interpreter of 
his Master's language. The language is unques- 
tionably equivocal and designed to be so by our 
Saviour, because it is a prophecy, and, therefore, 
like most prophecies, veiled in obscurity, the 
exact meaning and full import of which could 
only be learned from the event which was a ful- 
filment of it. It is not by any means surprising, 
under the circumstances, that the Jews misin- 
terpreted the declaration, and supposed that 
our Lord referred to the destruction of the Jew- 
ish Temple, For even the disciples did not fully 
apprehend its meaning till after his resurrection. 
The passage in Gai. 3 : 20, " A mediator is not a 
mediator of one ; but God is one," it is said has 
been interpreted in fifty different ways. Shall 
we then adopt the Cocceian principle and say 
that it actually has fifty different senses ? Or 
shall we adopt the Swedenborgian theory and 
choose out of these fifty meanings, three 
which may appear to be the most probable ? Or, 
shall we say, with many others, that it has two 
meanings ? Because a passage of Scripture is 
capable of being understood in two or more 
senses, this is no proof that it was designed to 
be taken in all these senses. 

The fact that certain persons or things men- 
tioned in the Old Testament are typical of cer- 
tain persons or events recorded in the New, fur- 
nishes no exception to our Canon. Types are 
not icords h\it persons or things^ which under the 



120 LAWS OP INTERPRETATION — 

Old Dispensation, were designed in certain re- 
spects to prefigure corresponding persons or 
things called the antitypes, under the New Dis- 
pensation. There is no typical sense in the 
words which relate to these persons or things 
distinct from the obvious sense, any more than 
there is in the words of Scripture relating to 
any other subject. The words, for instance, 
which describe the rites, sacrifices, or occurren- 
ces, of the ancient dispensation, are to be inter- 
preted in their plain, usual, historical sense. 
And although many of these rites were undoubt- 
edly typical of future events under the Gospel dis- 
pensation, no secondary, typical or mystical 
sense is to be attributed to the language employ- 
ed in speaking of them. David was undoubtedly 
in .some respects a tj^pe of Christ; but it does 
not hence follow that all which he uttered or 
wrote, even under divine inspiration, has a typi- 
cal import. 

It is no violation of our Canon to attach es- 
pecially to the words of our Saviour, a deeper 
and profounder sense than that which lies upon 
the surface, and would first suggest itself to the 
mind of the careless and indifferent reader. 
This 9r\'/i^ekicrts or v-PTovota, as it is called, is not a 
liXoyUi or double sense, though it has often been 
confounded with it. It is the real and only 
sense intended by Christ, — the only sense which 
corresponds to the character and office of Christ 
and the spiritual nature of his religion. Nor is 
it an occult or hidden sense any farther than that 
it requires more thorough examination and 
thoughtful attention, and a deeper and more 
truthful insight into the spirit of Christianity, 
to bring out to yiew the real mea^ning, than is 



MEANING OF WORDS. 121 

necessary in regard to historical passages. For 
example: by the expression '^to be born again." 
as used by our Saviour in his discourse with Xi- 
codemus, a Jew, according to the particular 
usage of his nation and of the time, would natu- 
rally understand by it, to become a proselyte to 
the Jewish religion ; and many Christian inter- 
preters regard it as identical or nearly so with 
baptism. But our Saviour employed the expres- 
sion in a peculiar sense, in accordance with the 
whole nature and spirit of his religion, as deno- 
ting a radical change of heart or affections and 
will — a complete moral and spiritual regenera- 
tion, of which baptism or the public profession 
of religion and initiation into the Christian 
Church is but an outward sign, symbol, and in- 
dication. 

Again : it is no violation of our Canon to em- 
ploy the Scriptures in an accommodated sense 
for devotional purposes, or for moral and reli- 
gious instruction and improvement, provided it 
is understood that the accommodated sense is 
not the real one intended by the w^riter, but 
only an adaptation of the passage to a particu- 
lar use. In this way we accommodate the 
Psalms, when we employ them for devotional 
purposes in public or private worship, rather 
than for instruction. We adopt the language of 
the Psalmist as our own ancl employ it as ex- 
^>ressive of our circumstances and feelings as far 
Is by accommodation we can do so. 

The question of a double sense is not the same 
with the question whether any prophecy is so 
-♦^onstructed as to admit of a gradual fulfilment, 
|iot confined to one precise object or time, but 
Extending through a considerable period and 



122 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION — 

designedly applicable to more than one event. 
It is very probable, that there are prophecies 
which extend through a long course of years 
and point out a succession of events, all tending 
to one point, or all centered in one person. It 
is doubtless to such prophecies as have this 
gradual accomplishment and completion, that 
Lord Bacon refers when he speaks of '' a spring- 
ing and germinant accomplishment." The sim- 
ple point is, whether a prophecy fulfilled in one 
sense^ looks forward to another accomplishment 
in a sense entirely new and diverse, altogether 
independent of the former sense, not bearing on 
the same point, not forming a part of the same 
dispensation, nor referring to the same general 
design. 

That there are difficulties in regard to the use 
made by the New Testament writers of certain 
passages in the Old Testament, which the theory 
of a double sense is supposed to solve, w411 not 
be denied. But it would seem to be better to 
leave these difficulties unexplained, than to re- 
sort to a method of solution, which violates the 
established laws of language. 

CANON III. 

A word whieh has more meanings than one^ cannot^ 
at the option of an interpreter^ he understood as coyn;- 
hining any two of ihejn. 

This canon is no less self-evident than the one 
last considered. An interpreter has no more 
right to combine two distinct meanings of a 
word, than he has to create a third meaning. 
It is at his option to select either of two mean- 
ings belonging to a word, which he may regard 
as most suitable; but he is not at liberty to 



MEANING OF WORDS. 123 

combine the two and thus virtually to form a 
third not authorized by usage, nor required by 
the exigency of the passage. This law is not 
perhaps so frequently or ^systematically trans- 
gressed, as Canon 2, but is nevertheless often 
disregarded even by eminent biblical exposi- 
tors. The following are examples of this. The 
phrase translated in our standard version evil 
cojisci e)ice in Heb. 10: 22, is rendered by Prof 
Stuart, '• a consciousness of evil," or '' a con- 
science oppressed with evil or sin." '^ Perhaps," 
he adds, "both senses are included; for both 
are characteristic of Christian sincerity and full 
faith." Thus this distinguished commentator 
makes the same word signify both conscience and 
consciousness in combination. Undoubtedly the 
original word has both tliese significations, but 
not at the same time, and in the same place. 
Besides it is quite doubtful whether the phrase 
has in this passage, either of the two meanings 
ascribed to it by Prof Stuart. The phrase 
"consciousness of evil," or "consciousness of 
being evil or sinful," i. e. of intrinsic demerit, 
is certainly not removed either by the pardon- 
ing or sanctifying efficacy of the blood of Christ, 
for this remains with the Christian till death. 
He will ever feel that he is a guilty sinner, i. e. 
a transgressor of the Divine law, and consequent- 
ly deserving of punishment, though by means of 
a pardon no longer liable to punishment. It is 
no part of the Saviour's work or of the Spirit's 
work to remove this conviction of sin and of its 
ill desert, but to deepen it, in order to magnify 
the grace of God in the pardon of the self-con- 
demned soul. The rendering of our standard 
versioH is much to be preferred, and is not diffi- 



124 LAWS OP INTERPRETATION—- 

cult of explanation. By conscience is understood 
that faculty of the mind by which we either jus- 
tify or condemn ourselves, in view of our con- 
duct regarded as good or evil according to a 
known law. An evil conscience is a guilty^ accusing^ 
self-condemning conscience. See John 8 : 9. 
Tit. 3: 11. 1 John 3: 20. It is opposed to a 
good conscience^ i. e. an approving conscience, one 
which commends instead of blaming us : — that 
which gives a favorable testimony to the sinceri- 
ty and uprightness of a man's conduct. See 
Acts 23: 1. 2 Cor. 1: 12. 1 Tim. 1: 15, 19. 
ileb. 13: 18. 1 Pet. 3: 16. 

A purified conscience^ or an heart sprinkled from 
an evil conscience, is one from which the accu- 
sations and terrors of a guilty conscience are 
remo-'-ed by means of a pardon, so that the sin- 
ner, though fully conscious of his sinfulness and 
ill-desert, is enabled by faith in Christ Jesus, to 
rejoice in hope of the bliss of heaven. See Ileb. 
9 : 14 ; 10 : 2. It is to such a conscience that 
the Apostle here refers. 

The Greek verb ^a^^-y^y in the New Testament, 
like the corresponding Hebrew word in the Old 
Testament, siojnifies both to instruct and to chas- 
tise. 2 Tim. 2^: 25. Titus 2 : 12. Heb. 12: 6, 7, 
10. In 1 Tim. 1 : 20, the Apostle speaking of 
Hymeneus and Alexander, says, ''whom I have 
delivered unto Satan that they may learti not to 
blaspheme." Now Parkhurst in his Lexicon of 
the New Testament has invented a meaning for 
the word in this place, ^vhich combines both in- 
struction and correction. But this is as arbitra- 
ry and unauthorized as if he had assigned to 
tiie word a meaning at random. It is true that 
it was through the medium of pjij^st'ls^nipjiit Q|? 



MEANING OF WORDS. 129 

ecclesiastical discipline; the instruction to which 
the i^ pestle alludes was given: this, however, ig 
not expressed in the words, but is ascertained 
from the context. 

The Hebrew word rendered in our standard 
version io deal prudently^ in Isa. 52: 13, signified 
both to act wistly^ and to prosper. Some com- 
mentators understand it in this passage in the 
former, and others in the latter sense. But 
Prof Hengstenberg in the first edition of his 
Christology, undertakes to combine the two. 
*' It is better," he says " to join both significa- 
tions together ; he shall in ivisdom reign prosperous- 
ly; or more briefly, he shall reign v-elir Jlow these 
two significations are entirely distinct ; and 
though national prosperity may be and often is 
the result of a wise administration of the gov- 
ernment, the word never has, and by our Canon 
never should be made to have both significa- 
tions in the same occurrence. Prof H. subse- 
quently perceived his ierror, and in the last edi- 
tion of his valuable work he has corrected it, 
and adopts the rendering shall act wisely^ though 
he erroneously asserts that the verb always has 
that meaning and never to he successful. The 
Greek noun translated in our standard version 
volume^ Pleb. 10 : 7, Dr. Owen explains as uniting 
the signification of volume^ roll^ and that of head 
or beginning. "As the book itself," he says, "was 
one roll, so the headoi it, i. e. the beginning of it — 
among the first things written in it, is this re- 
corded concerning the coming of Christ to do 
the will of God. This includes both senses of 
the word; in the roll or volume itself, and in 
the head, or in the beginning of the roll, i. e. of 
the part of Scripture which was written wheii 



126 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION — 

David penned this psalm:" — alluding to the first 
promise of the Saviour in Gen. 3 : 15. But nei 
ther does the Greek word nor the Hebrew word 
to which it answers in the Psalm from which the 
passage is quoted, ever signify the heginniyig of 
a book, but, as our translation has it, a volume or 
roll. And if the Greek word from its etymology 
could be supposed to signify the head or beg hi- 
7iing/\i cannot have both significations at the 
same place. The word translated judgment in 
Ileb. 10 : 27, Dr. Owen observes, " is sometimes 
taken for the sentence and sometimes the punish- 
mc7it suffered according to the award." '' I doubt 
not," he Sdds, '* but in the word here used both 
these are included, viz., the righteous sentence 
of (aod judging and determining on the guilt of 
this sin, and the punishment itself which ensues 
thereon." But though the sentence of condem- 
nation and the punishment awarded as the pen- 
alty of the violated law are connected as ante- 
cedent and consequent, there is no reason what- 
ever for uniting them in any case, and in this 
particular instance such a combination is entire- 
ly out of place, for the rCvison that the punish- 
ment consequent on the sentence of condemna- 
tion is explicitly alluded to in the expression 
fcry iyidignaiio7i^ which immediately follows. The 
Hebrew word translated to wither in Psalm 1 : 3, 
signifies also to fall^ to fall off^ and the Septua- 
gint renders it in this place to fall off. But Prof. 
Bush combines the two and translates it fall 
vjithering off^- — remarking, that " the primary sense 
of the verb is doubtless to dry up^ to wither, and 
connected with this to flag.,., to droop ^ to be ex- 
hauMed. But as the leaves of trees when thus 
withered and dried up fall to the ground, we shall 



MEANING OP WORDS. 127 

probably do most justice to the original by re- 
taining both ideas." Such an interpretation as 
this is a violation of our Canon. 

The Greek noun vroftoytj, is translated in our 
standard version in Rom. 2 : 7, patient contmu- 
ance. Now this word signifies sometimes patience, 
viz., under trials and affliction?, and sometimes 
constancy or perseverance^ viz., in the performance 
of good works. But in our version the two 
meanings are combined. The context shows 
that the proper meaning in this place is constancy 
or perseveranee, and denotes continued activity 
and steadfastness in the Christian life. The 
passive virtue of patience does not seem to be at 
all alluded to. 

The Greek verb 'SiKeaoMj signifies in the New 
Testament, 1. to make just or holy, intrinsically. 
2. to declare or pronounce just judicialh^, i. e. to 
acquit, to clear. 3. to regard and treat as just or 
holy, extra-judicially, i. e. to pardon, to absolve 
from guilt or liability to punishment. But Fa- 
ber and some other theolojgical writers combine 
the second and third significations, and regard 
the cognate noun justification in its evangelical 
sense as a complex term denoting both acquittal 
and pardon. But the ideas severally conveyed 
by these two terms are incompatible with each 
other. A man cannot be both acquitted and 
pardoned in relation to the same act or acts. 
For acquittal implies innocence, Rud pardon implies 
guilt. 

Our Canon does not forbid us to regard certain 
terms and expressions in the Scriptures as used 
in an intensive sense. Thus the Greek word 
'«^#«aga5axi«, has in Rom. 8 : 19, and in Phil. 1: 20, 
an intensive force, which is well expressed in 



128 LAWS OF INTERPRETAtiON. 

our standard version by earnest expectation. This 
is evident both from the composition of the 
word and the nature of the passage. So also 
the Hebrew word in Psalm 2 : 1, rage appears 
to be intensive, and may be rendered as in our 
Prayer Book translation /?^?70Z(<s/j/ rage, or better 
still with others, tumidtuoiisly assemble. The word 
rendered in the same Psalm, v. 4., sore displeasure-^ 
is intensive and denotes hot displeasure^ violent 
anger. See also Psalm 6 : I. 

Again : our Canon does not forbid us to attach 
to a word or passage as full, comprehensive and 
fertile a sense, as the usage of the saered writers 
justifies or the context, nature of the subject, 
and the spiritual and comprehensive character 
of Christ's religion seem to require. A feeble, 
jejune and frigid sense so commonly attached to 
the Scriptures by rationalistic commentators, is 
derogatory to the Word and Spirit of God. As 
the Scriptures were appointed by God to enlight- 
en, reform and sanctify the human race, it is to 
be presumed that those books and passages in 
which weighty religious and moral truths are 
propounded, contain an important, rich, and 
comprehensive sense, worthy of their Divine 
Author, and adapted to accomplish the great 
^nd for which they were given. 



tFIGURATIVE LANCaJA^^E. 12S 



CHAPTER XV. 

DIFFERENT SENSES IN WHICH WORDS ARE 
USKDU — riGUilATIVE LANGUAGE. 

before proceeding further to exhibit the Prin- 
ciples and Canons of Jnterpretatiota, it is neeee- 
«arv, in order to the right understanding of our 
subject, that some attention should be given to 
ithe different senses in which words are em- 
w)lo3^ed, and the uses to 'which they are applied. 
The most common and by far the most import 
«,nt division or distinction of words in respect to 
tlieir meaning, is into literal or grammatical^ an4 
Jiguratice or tropioal The terms literal and gram- 
matieal refer equally to the ELEME^-Ts of -a word, 
iind in reference to our present subject are use^ 
precisely in the same sense. Literal^ from the 
iLatin litera^ denotes the meaning of a word, 
ivhich is according to the better, llie proper or 
primary meaning ; and the same is indicated by 
'ihe term grammatical^ in this conneji:ion, a word 
of Greek derivation for what is -according to the 
-^^a,fjLfji,tt, or letter. But w^hen a word originally 
appropriated to one thing, comes to be applied 
.to another, which bears some rea'l or fancied re- 
:semblance to it, as there is in such a.<iase a tui:p- 
ing of it to a new use, we say a trope is employed. 
(Greek roo'Tro^^ inversio, conversio) and the trans- 
ferred meaning is called ir apical, j ov we say i^ 
.language derived from the Latin, {fg^ra^ image) 
that a figure is then used, because in such cases 
the meaning of the word assiam-es a new form. 
When other meanings become by usage attached 
to a word, besides the primary and principal 
aneaning, they are all denominated improper or 



130 I^tGIJftAtiVE LANGUAGE. 

secondary senses, of whatever number or kind 
they may be. But to make a sense figurative in 
the proper acceptation of that term, there must 
be not only a departure from the primary sense, 
but there must at the snnie time be excited 
something like an image in the mind. Thus 
when the property of hardr\ess is applied to a 
stone, the expression is used literally in its prop^ 
er and natural sense; but when it is applied to 
the hearty it is used figuratively, or in an improp= 
er or tropical acceptation. The sense, however^ 
allowing for the change of subject, is virtually 
the same, its application only being transferred 
from a physical to a moral quality. In the phra- 
ses rosy face ^ snowy shn^ the epithets rosy and snoivy 
are used tropically, because the properties indi- 
cated by those terms cannot be literally and 
properly applied to the face or skin. The Greek 
verb T^oa-xo-TTTM properly signifies to strike one sub- 
stance against another : as, for example, to strike 
the foot against a stone. Matt. 4: 6, and then 
to stumble^ — the natural and frequent consequence 
of thus striking the foot. John 11: 9, 10. But 
it is transferred from material to spiritual ob- 
jects, and then signifies tropically to sturaUe at 
anv thing, i. e, to take offence at it. Rom. 9 : 32,— 
1 Pet. 2:8. 

Tropes and figures abound in all languages. 
They originate in some instances from necessity: 
as when the language furnishes no appropriate 
term to express the idea, or in order to avoid 
the indefinite multiplication of new words. Ac- 
cordingly we find tropical language in use in the 
first ages of mankind, and abounding most in 
languages, the vocabulary of which is most lim- 
ited. That which constitutes the beauty of Ian- 



IPIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 131 

guage thus arose from its very poverty. But 
necessity is by no means the sole cause of their 
introduction. They are more frequently em" 
ployed merely for the sake of variety in expres^ 
sion. in order to avoid th« too frequent repetr- 
tion of the same word ; for in all human opera- 
tions gratification is studied even more than 
necessity. Still more commonly they are intro- 
duced for the sake of ornament. In proportion 
as an author is desirous of adoxning his style, 
the more does he abound in tropes. The fre- 
quency of tropes depends much, also, on the ge- 
nius of the writer, or the nature of his subject, 
and on the state of his mind at the time of writing. 
Me*n of warm and vivid imaginations, delight in 
tropes, -even of the boldest character. This 
Arises from the fact that they easily perceive 
and form similitudes, and by their peculiar tem- 
perament are excited to make comparisons. 
Indeed the least excitement of feeling impels a 
man of ordinary fancy to express his thoughts, 
not by the words directly appropriated to them, 
but by some accessory idea, suggested to his mind 
by the principle of association, and preferred on 
account of its greater vivacity and beauty. It is 
easy to see therefore, among what people, and in 
what species of composition, we are especially to 
look for tropical language. The nations which 
inhabit tropical climates are from their ardent 
temperament, more addicted to its use than 
those which dwell in cold regions ; and poetry 
is particularly the field in which tropes most 
abound. Eastern nations indulge in figures, 
also, far more than Western. The common lan- 
guage of the Arabs of Western Asia, for in- 
stance, abounds in imagery of the boldest char- 



132 



FiaiTRATIVir LANGFA€SIL 



acter. These remarks will explain why the 
language of Scripture is so highly figurative, es- 
pecially of the Old Testament. The Hebrews 
were Orientals, and like other inhabitants of the 
East, possessing waxm and lively imaginations, 
and living in a warm^ and fertile climate, sur- 
rounded by objects equally beautiful and agree- 
able, they delighted in a figurative style of ex- ^ 
pression ; and sometimes fancied similitudes^ 
which seem to us farfetched, and to the chas- 
tened taste of Western readers do not always 
appear the most elegant. Another reason why 
the Old Testament abounds in imagery is, that 
much of it is poetry. Now it is the privilege of 
a poet to illustrate and adorn the productions of 
his muse, and to render them more animated 
and attractive by figures and images drawn from; 
almost every object that presents itself to the 
imagination. ^' Hence David, Solomon, Isaiah, 
and other sacred poets, abound with figures^ 
make rapid transitions from one to another,, 
everywhere scattering flowers, and adorning^ 
their poems with metaphors, the real beauty of 
which, however, can only be appreciated, by be- 
ing acquainted with the country in which the- 
sacred poets lived, its situation and peculiarities^ 
and also with the manners of the inhabitants, 
and the idioms of their language." The lan- 
guage of the New Testament, and especially the 
discourses of our Saviour, are not less figura- 
tive. 

A close attention, therefoi'e, to the nature of 
figurative language in general, and especially of 
the tropical language of the Scriptures, is of the 
highest importance to the Biblical Student; for 
while on the one handj. almost all the peculiar 



^IGURAtlVlE LANGUAGE. 133 

doctrines of the Gospel have been resolved by 
one class of interpreters, into Oriental meta- 
phors, numerous mistakes on the other hand, 
have been made by another class, in conse*- 
quence of a literal application of what was figu- 
ratively meant; important doctrines in theology 
have been made to rest on tropical expressions 
interpreted literally, and even grave dogmatic 
errors have originated in the same way, and are 
persistently maintained on this ground alone. 
As an illustration of this remark, the following 
example is taken from the admirable Lectures of 
Bishop Marsh : 

" When our Saviour at the Last Supper took 
bread, and blessed it, and brake it, he gave it to 
his disciples, saying, 'Take, eat, this is my iod^V 
In like manner, when he had taken the cup, and 
given thanks, he said to his disciples, ^ Drink ye 
all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testa- 
ment.' In the same figurative language he had 
spoken on a former occasion, when he said, ' He 
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloody 
dwelleth in me and I in him.' And then, 
comparing his body with bread, he added, 
^ This is that bread which came down from heav- 
en.' The Jews, indeed, as well on this occasion, 
as when he spoke of the temple of his body, un- 
derstood him literally, and asked, ' How can 
this man give us his flesh to eat ?' though our 
Saviour himself, when he said of his body, that 
it was the bread which came down from heaven, 
plainly indicated, that he was only comparing his 
body with bread. The Church of Rome has fol- 
lowed the example of the Jeius, and has likewise 
ascribed a literal meaning to words which were 
purely Jigurative, B'^* ^h^. rliffioultv which r>r<^ss- 



134 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

ed upon the Jews^ in regard to literally eating tlie 
body of Christ, is not felt by the Church of Rome, 
The mistake of the Jews consisted in supposing, 
that our Saviour literally offered them his body 
to be eaten ; whereas he literally offered his body 
as a sacrifice^ and what he offered in remembrance 
of that sacrifice was literally bread and ivine. 
But the Church of Rome, regarding the ceremo- 
ny of th@ Lord's Supper as an actual representa- 
tion of that sacrifice, not as a com77hemoration of it, 
supposes, that the body and the blood of Christ 
are literally presented to the view of the commu- 
nicant. And believing, that Christ himself, by 
the consecration of the bread and wine at the 
Lord's Supper, had literally converted them into 
his own body and blood, before be said to his 
disciples, 'This is my bod}'',' and 'this is my 
blood,' they conclude, that the miraculous con- 
version, thus ascribed to Christ himself, (a con- 
version, which, had it been necessary lay undoubt- 
edly within the reach o^ almighty power ^) is equally 
performed by the human power of an officiating 
priest. But the Church of England [and the 
same is true of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States,] with due attention to that 
figurative style, so frequently employed by our 
Saviour on other occasion?, has interpreted his 
words on that solemn occasion by the rules of 
analogy, and by the dictates of common sense, — 
we eat the bread in remembrance ^ihdii Christ died 
for us ; we feed on him only in our hearts by 
faith with thanksgiving. We believe that the 
blood of Christ was shed for us, and will preserve 
us to everlasting life. But the cup, which we 
drink, we drink only in remembrance that Chrisf^s 
blood was shed for us. The same i^te^jpretatioift 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 135 

of our Saviour's words was adopted by the Re- 
formers in general, with the exception only of 
Luther. He firmly indeed resisted the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, or an actual change in 
the substance of the elements, as maintained by 
th^ Church of Rome. He so far took the words 
of Christ in a figurative sense, as not to believe 
that the bread and wine, even ^i'ter the conse- 
cration, meant the sa7ne thiyigs as the body and 
blood of Christ. He believed that the bread 
and wine still retained their proper qualities. 
But he was perplexed by this expression : ' This 
is my body !' and though conference after con- 
ference was holden on the subject, he could 
never be persuaded to construe that expression 
consistently with the figurative language which 
is used throughout; and he persevered to the 
last in so strict an interpretation of that expres- 
sion, as if it meant, ""I'his is really and literally 
my body. Having rejected, however, the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, or an actual change 
in the elements, he endeavored to remove the 
difficulty, in which he had unnecessarily involv- 
ed himself, by supposing that, after the conse- 
cration, the body of Christ w^as united with the 
bread; and th\s, union (not conversion) of sub- 
stance was called^ consubstantiation. But there 
was a difficulty still remaining, which occasioned 
a controversy of long duration after Luther's 
death. The divines of Switzerland objected to 
the Lutherans, th^-t our Saviour could not be 
everywhere corporeally present, which the doc- 
trine of consubstantiation implied ; while the 
Lutherans, on their part, endeavored to remove 
that objection, by accounting for the hypostatic 
union ou the groun4 of what tb^y technically 



13® Wm^%JbTIVlSl I..ANG¥AGBv 

termed ^ communicatio idfiomatuift/ or t^e com^ 
i^linication of properties. And since Christ, as 
God, must be omnipresent, in respect to hi^ 
divine nature, they hence inferred, that as this* 
divine nature had been united to his human na- 
ture, there existed a communication of proper- 
ties from the former to the latter, which made 
Mm corporeally present, where he was spiritually 
present. The argument, however, did not satis- 
fy their opponents, who thought it wiser to pre- 
vent the difficulty, by an uniformly corsistent 
interpretation &^ igsratiye language." 

It is strange that any sensible man should fail 
to perceive that the expression of our Saviour 
here referred to, w^hich has occasioned so much 
bitter controversy anci even bloodshed in the 
Christian Chorcb, is simply a metonymy of the 
sign put for the thing signified. This is a figure 
common to all languages, and the idiomatic ex- 
pression under eoHsideraition is of frequent oc- 
currence in the Hebrew, because there is no 
word in that language which properly means to 
signify or represent In the absence of such a 
word the substansive verb is emplojed in a 
tropical sense, and is either expressed or under- 
stood, as in the following example : '' The three 
branches <:r/'g three days." Gon. 40: 12; and "the 
three baskets are three days," i. e. the branches 
and the baskets represent three days. (See also 
ch. 41. 26. Ezek. 32: 11.) The same metony- 
mical expression is found in the service for the 
celebration of the Passover among the modern 
Jews; in which the master of the family and 
all the guests take hold of the dish containing 
the unleavened bread, which had been previ- 
ously broken^ and say, ''Lo I this is the bread of 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 137 

affliction which all our ancestors ate in the land 
of Egypt." The same idiom occurs frequently 
in the New Testament. Thus, " the field is the 
world," *' the harvest is the end of the world," 
etc. Matt. 13: 38. 39. '"I am (represent) the 
vine — ye are (represent) the branches." John 
15: 5. "That rock tuas (represented) Christ." 
1 Cor. 10: 4. This tropical meaning is required 
in reference to the words of our Savicur not 
only by biblical usage, but also by the context 
and the scope of the passage, not to mention the 
demands of reason and common sense. And 
yet in consequence of Luther's failing to see 
this, and persistently refusing to yield his opin- 
ion, a large and important branch of the Prot- 
estant Church has had incorporated mto her 
creed a doctrine scarcely less unscriptural and 
incomprehensible than that of transubstantia- 
tion ; while in the Church of Rome many a 
valuable life has been sacrificed to expiate the 
sin of rejecting a dogma, originating in the dark 
ages, and founded on a misconception of a figure 
of speech. 

The Hebrews were exceedingly fond, as we 
have already remarked, of a stvle of composi- 
tion abounding with tropes and figures of va- 
rious kinds and of the boldest character, 
amounting in many instances to the most start- 
ling exaggeration. Their poets in particular 
indulged greatly the luxuriancy of their imagi- 
nation in the employment of figurative language, 
for by presenting a kind of picture to the mind, 
it afibrded delight as well as instruction. Treat- 
ing, as the Bible does, also, of supersensuous ob- 
jects and of beings w^ho move in a sphere beyond 
our observation, much of the language of Scrip- 



138 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

ture is necessarily analogical. It is highly impor- 
tant to the correct understanding of the Scrip- 
tures, therefore, that the Biblical student should 
be familiarly acquainted with the different kinds 
of figures employed by the sacred writers, and the 
proper method of distinguishing figurative from 
literal language. Without this knowledge, it 
w^ill be impossible for him to make much pi'O-. 
gress in ascertaining the true meaning of the 
Scriptures; and he will be constantly liable to 
mistakes, which may lead to an erroneous belief, 
or to wrong practice. We proceed, therefore, to 
enumerate and briefly explain some of the more 
common and important figures which occur in 
the sacred volume. 

There are figures of diction which relate mere^ 
ly to the addition or subtraction of letters or 
syllables. There are also figures of constructioyi ; 
but these relate to grammatical arrangement 
and not to the meaning of words. ISJ either of 
these has any relation to the interpretation of 
the language of Scripture, with which alone our 
subject is concerned. Tt i^rhetorical figures only 
which affect the sense. These for the most part 
are founded either on covjunotion or on resemblance. 
By conjunction is meant the mutual relation 
subsisting between two things; and this relation 
may be either nhysical or intellectual. When the 
conjunction is physical, the ti'ope is technically 
called a synecdoche. This occurs when there is a 
substitution of the whole for a part^ or a part for 
the whole. Thus the t<;or/c/ sometimes denotes the 
Jloman Empire, which was a yery small, though a 
very remarkable portion of it. Luke 2 : 1. The 
souli^ put for the entire joer^on. Acts 2: 41, 27: 
37: the/aA is put for the Wy, Ps. 16 j 9, Man^ 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 139 

put for all^ Dan. 12: 2, where the prophet cer- 
tainly does not intend to describe a partial re- 
surrection. Rom. 5 : 19, who the many are in 
this place we iearn from the preceding verse. 
The container is sometiaies put for the thing con- 
tamed. Thus a table is employed to denote tlie 
food placed on it. " Let their table become a 
snare." A eup stands for the liquor it contains. 
^'The cup of blessing which we bless," 1 Cor. 10: 
16 ; just as we say of the intemperate man that 
he is fond of the bottle. Ho'u&e is put for house- 
hold — the family residing in the house. Gen. 7: 1. 
Heaven is put for God himself Hence the often 
recurring phrase ''kingdom of heaven," applied 
to the new dispensation of the Messiah, and the 
Christian Church. There is no allusion in it to 
the heavenly state of that dispensation or 
church, but simply to their divine origin. 

Where the conjunction is intellectual or sup- 
posed, the figure is called a metonymy] in which 
there is the substitution of one word for another, 
Avhere the thoughts are closely conjoined and 
rise up together in the mind, though there is no 
proper resemblance between them. Thus where 
the cause is -put for the effect : as when the Holy 
Spirit is put for the gfis and influences of the 
Spirit. " Quench not the Spirit,"* 1 Thes. 5 : 19, 
Luke II : 13. Christ is called our life^ because 
he is the author of our spiritual life. The sign 
is frequently put for the thing signified. Thus a 
sceptre is put for power ^ — to bow the knee is to do 
hojnage^ — to Ift up the hand is to sware. Circumci- 
sion is called in Acts 7 : 8, a covenant^ because it 
was the sign of the covenant. In like manner 
Baptism is denominated regeneration^ Tit. 3 : 5, be- 
oaqse it is tho visible token and symbol of ia* 



140 FIGURATIVE LANGITAOE. 

ward moral regeneration. The neglect of this 
figure led the ancient fathers, who are followed 
by many in the present day, to hold that bap- 
tism is itself a moral and spiritual regeneration. 
Frequently a sentiment or action is used for the 
object with which it is conversant. Thus faith some- 
times signifies not the belief itself, but objective- 
ly the doctrines which are addressed to our faith 
— the Christian truths believed. "Contend earn- 
estly for the faith once delivered to the saints." 
Jude 3. Hope stands for Christ the great object 
of hope: " Which is Christ in you, the hope of 
glory." Col. 1 : 27. Desire is put for the thin^g 
desired: ^' I take away from thee the desire of 
thine eyes," i. e. the prophet's wife. Ezek. 24: 16. 
That numerous class of tropes which is found- 
ed on the resemblance or similitude which exists 
between objects, is called metaphor, which con- 
sists in the substitution of one thing for another 
which in some respects is like it. When I say 
^ God is my protector,' T express the thought in 
its simplicity. When I say, ' He is my shield,' 
I clothe the thought in metaphorical language. 
In a metaphor the writer substitutes some im- 
age for the thought y>'hich that image is intend- 
ed to express. This substitution takes place in 
consequence of a tacit comparison which the 
mind makes between the image and the thought^ 
so that the metaphor is nothing else than a vir-' 
tual comparison between the image and the 
thought which is illustrated by the image. A 
metaphor is not the same thing as a simile^ 
though they are both founded on resemblance, 
and are very nearly allied to each other. The 
simile and the metaphor differ in this respect, 
that the metaphor is an implicit and virtual com- 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 141 

parison between two things, while in a simile 
the comparison is express and formal. The dif- 
ference may be illustrated by the following ex- 
ample : If a person should say of Alexander 
the Great that he was a lion, it would be a meta- 
phor ; but if he should say that he is like a lion,, 
it would be a simile. In the former case the 
word lion is not used in its proper and natural 
sense for the animal designated by that name; 
but it is turned from it and made to designate a 
brave and courageous person : while in the lat- 
ter it is obviously employed in its natural and 
customary signification. Hence the simile is 
not classed among tropes. 

In connection with metaphors it is important 
to notice a numerous class of words and phrases 
which are derived from human objects and used 
to express something in or concerning God. 
Upon a proper understanding of these depend 
all correct apprehensions of the character of the 
Supreme Being as revealed in the Bible. In the 
language of Seiler, " As a finite being can have 
no intuitive knowledge of an infinite^ so no lan- 
guage of rational creatures can completely ex- 
press the nature of God, and render it capable 
of being comprehended. Only one thing can 
be immediately made known concerning him. He 
IS. Even of this we should have no idea, if we 
had not an immediate consciousness of what is 
meant by the expressions / am^ I work^ I act 
freely^^ Arc. All farther knowledge of God must 
be communicated in words invented to express, 
ourselves intelligibly concerning human and 
other terrestrial objects. All word's which we 
us© in human language, in order to speak with 
others concerning God and divine things^ have 



142 ¥'iGe&Al^I^;'E LAl^GUACJtS. 

their foundation in a resemblance^ which, accord- 
ing to our conceptions, exists between the Deity* 
and human beings, and must also exist in a cer- 
tain measure between causes and effects. This 
resemblance is either essential or non-essential. 
Ihe essential is such as regards the pure perfec- 
tions of our minds, i. e. such perfections as are 
not necessarily accompanied by any imperfec- 
tions, — as Heason^ Liberty^ Power, Lif\ Wisdom^ 
Goodness. These human expressions, applied to 
the Deity, afford an ana/o^fraf knowledge. Hence 
arise analogical phrases, which are absolutely 
necessary whenever we speak of God, and would 
ourselves acquire, or would communicate to 
others, some knowledge of his perfections. All 
these analogical expressions must be received 
properly, although they give no immediate and 
intuitive, but merely a symbolical knowledge of 
the Deity. God possesses indeed reason, wis- 
dom, goodness, liberty, although it is not human 
reason, human liberty, kc. There is between 
God and finite minds a natural resemblance, in- 
asmuch as 'jthey have been formed after his im- 
age; while without reason and liberty, wisdom 
and goodness, neither virtue nor happiness can 
possibly exist. These then are proper expres- 
sions of that which exists in God.""^ In refer- 
ence to such language, therefore, we are to in- 
terpret literally and not tropically. But besides 
these analogical expressions, there are many 
others of a different character which must be 
regarded as improper or tropical. They are, 1. 
those in which human affections, passions, and suf- 
ferings are ascribed to the Deity. The figure in 

* Biblical Hermeneutics> by Seikr. 



l^tGUkATlVE LANGtUOte. 143 

this case is called ayithropopathy. 2. those in 
Which God is spoken of as if possessed of a Jac- 
manform^ human organs, and human members^ and 
as if performing human actions. In this case the 
figure is called anthropomorphism. " A rational 
being, such as man is, who receives his impres- 
sions through the scnse^^ can only form his know* 
Indge of God by what he finds in himself, — from 
his own powers and properties. Anthropomor*^ 
jDhitic tnodes of thought and expression ar6 
therefore unavoidable in the religion of men; 
tliey are absolutely necessary. Although such 
eJ:pressions can give no other than corporeal 
or sensible representations of the Deity, they are 
necessarily founded on the nature of things, and 
consequently true and just, when we j^rodeisd no 
farther than the point of resemblance and guard 
against transferring to God qualities pertaining 
to the human senses. God it is true thinks ; but 
that God possesses human thoughts is untrue, 
'i'hat God knows 2l\\ things is a proper expression : 
but it is improper or tropical to say, God sees all 
things. One is equally true with the other. But 
the man who should imagine that God sees in ^ 
proper [literal] sense, would be under a com- 
plete misapprehension." f In explaining pas- 
sages therefore which are of an anthropopathic 
or anthropomorphitic character, we must be 
careful to understand them in a way suitable to 
the infinite majesty of God and free frotn every 
thing which may savor of impurity or imperfec- 
tion. 'His eye' is his infinite knowledge; 'his 
arm,' is his almighty power; 'the sounding of 
his bowels' is his tender love and compassion; 

f Seller. 



144: FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

* his repentance' is his purpose to change the 
course of his providence for good and sufficient 
reasons, springing out of the moral conduct of 
his creatures; he is ' angry,' when he punishes 
the sinner ; a»d his ' fury' paints the severity of 
their doom."^ 

Among tropical expressions should likewise 
be classed the figure Prosopoj^em^ or pci^somfica- 
tlon, in which sometimes in order to add force 
and beauty to the discourse, and sometimes for 
other purposes, properties, actions and charac- 
ter, are ascribed to fictitious, irrational or even 
inanimate objects, which properly appertain 
only to rational subjects or persons. The Per- 
sonification evidently partakes of the nature of 
the metaphor, and is by far the boldest of that 
class of figures. Examples of this will be found 
in Job 12': 7,8; Ps. U\ 10; Eev. 8: 27-31; 
Matt. 3:9; Luke 19: 40. 

The Allegory is another figure employed in the 
Scriptures, and like most others, is founded on 
resemblance. Indeed by many writers on Rheto- 
ric it is regarded as and frequently called a con- 
tinued, or extended, metaphor. But it differs 
materially from a metaphor in this respect- 
that while in the metaphor the tropical sense 
expressed is the only one intended, — in the alle- 
gory one meaning is expressed while another is 
intended, under cover of the words. The meta- 
phor therefore admits of but one interpretation; 
the allegory, on the contrary, admits of two, viz. 
the literal or grammatical and the allegorical 
or the interpretation of that sense which under- 
lies the natural and obvious sense. The meta- 

* McClelland on Interpretation. 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, 145 

phorical interpretation is an interpretation of 
words; the allegorical is an interpretation of 
things. Other figures occur in the Scriptures, 
such as Iro)vj, in which we say one thing and 
design another, in order to give the greater force 
and vehemence to our meaning. Examples of 
this figure may be found in 1 Kings, 18: 27; 22: 
15 ; Job 12: 2. By some commentators the ad- 
vice of Job's wife to her husband, Job 2 : 9 — 
" Curse God, and die," which they render " Bless 
God, and die," is regardt^d as ironical; see also 
1 Cor. 4: S, Under this figure belongs also the 
/Sarcasm, which is ii'ony in its superlative keen- 
ness and asperity. Matt. 27: 29; Mark 15: 32. 
This figui'e, however, is of rare occurrence in 
the Scriptures as not well suited to the chara<J- 
ter and design of tiKxt sacred book. 



CHAPTER XV. 

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

It is of the highest importance to the Biblical 
student to be able in the first place to distin- 
guish I he literal from the figurative language 
of Scripture and then rightly to interpret what 
is tropical. (Jiheiwise hi-* vvill be very likely in 
rnony instances, on the one hand, to mistake the 
figurative for the literal, as was sometimes done 
by the Jews, and even by the disciples of our 
Lord in their interpretation of his discourses, 
(e. g. John 6 : 52, 4 : 11; M?itt. 16 : 6, 12), or on 
the other hand, to pervert literal forms bv foro- 
10 



146 FIGURATIVE LANGFACTE. 

ing upon them a tropical sense. In relatfon to 
this subject it is proper to remark that those 
words are not to be considered figurative which 
have altogether lost their original and proper 
signification and are used no longer in any but 
a secondary sense; or which have become so con- 
nected by usage with the objects to which they 
have been transferred, as that the applied has be- 
come their usual and perhaps only signification ; 
e. ^., when we predicate luxuriousness of a crop, and 
when we speak of the wing of an army, the foot 
of a mountain, the head of a river, or the bed of 
a stream. The words luxuriousyiess, wing, foot^ 
&c., were all originally proper nouns used in a 
very different sense, but now they have become 
proper as thus used by transfer. Again, therv* 
are certain kinds of composition in which a flo- 
rid style and figurative language would m a good 
degree be out of place, and are therefore not to 
be looked for. Tropical language is not usually 
to be expected in legal instruments, statutes, his- 
tory, didactic, philosophical and scientific works, 
Creeds and Confessions, &c. In writings like 
these, perspicuity and literal exactness are chief- 
ly to be aimed at, and not elegance of diction. 
At the same time allowance must be made for 
the temperament, character and usages of the 
people among whom the writer or speaker lived. 
The prose compositions of Eastern nations 
abound much more in metaphor and imagevy 
than those of Western nations, and hence we 
may expect the more frequent occurrence of fig- 
ures in the historical and didactic portions of the 
Scriptures, than in the works of occidental wri- 
ters of a similar character. It is also proper to 
remark, that words, when employed to denote 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, 147 

iTiorfil or mental pbenomona, are usod in a sec- 
ondary and tropical sense, because in their ori- 
ginal and proper signification, they were designed 
to express niaterijd and physical [)henomena. e. </ , 
to perceive, regeneration, ilinmination,sanctifica- 
tion. purity, [)urific^tion, straight, path, way, Ac. 
'I'he following Canon will assist us in determin- 
ing whether a word is used figuratively or not. 
Where the suhject and attribtde, lohethcr a^^umed or 
^flir-nicd^ are hetermjencov^i^ incorigrvous^ and incom- 
patiblc with each other, the jrredicate sJwidd be inter- 
preted fguraiividy. In aj^plying this rule, we 
should examine the object spoken of, eitlier by 
the external or internal senses, or by recalling 
tiie external or internal pc^iception. E. g. The 
pin'ase w/iamed mind we understand tropically by 
repeating the perception of the idea of mind, 
«nd observing that the literal meaning of in- 
tiamed is incompatible with it. Jn intejpreting 
t\\^ phiase syiowy locks we appeal to the. external 
^en<es, which deteimine that the meaning of 
enowi/ here must be tropical. The subject and 
predicate are heterogeneous when the 0!ie is 
snaterial and the other immaterial ; the one ra- 
tional, the other irrational; the one animated, 
the other ir.animate; as, also, when they are dif- 
ferent species of the same genus. Because 
things, wiiich, from a natural iiicongruity, can- 
not co-exi><t in the same subject, cannot logical- 
ly, and therefore .cannot properti/ be predicated 
the one ot the other: for h;gical truth is the 
ii.anHhifion of propriety of expression. Hence 
if they are ))redicati'd at all. it must be figura- 
tively: e y the fieUls sm'dje,ihe^toiies crgoiii, tJwjdocds 
eiap their hands, day xndo day uttereih speech.. Jahn 
expresses the at>ove rule substantially in the 



148 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

following words : "If the subject and predicate 
(or adjunct) be such, that in their proper sense, 
they are inconsistent, we must conclude, that 
one or the other is tropical, provided that both be 
clearly known, and the repugnance be manifest." 
^^Frorn the rule/' which we have given, ''must be 
excepted," says Ernesti, "those texts in which 
divine and infinite attributes are predicated of Je- 
sus, equally with those in which spiiitual attri- 
butes are ascribed to man. For as both corpo- 
3'eal and spiritual qualities may be predicated of 
man, who is abeingcompoundL-dofsouland body; 
so both divine and human attributes may pro- 
perly be predicated of Christ, on account of the 
union of the two natures in his person." 

In order to determine whether language is figu- 
rative or not, it is uecessary in many cases to have 
recourse to the nature of things; e. g.y the mhtd is 
inflamed. Here by resorting to the nature of the 
mind, we determine that the sense of the predi- 
cate inflamed must be tropical. So when God is 
said to ascertd^ to descend^ to walk, &e., we must 
re-sort to the real nature of the subject spoken 
of to ascertain the nature of the langunge^ em- 
ployed. Our appeal may also be m^de to the 
dictates of common sense and the plain elements 
of knowledge; g. ^., Pluck mtt the Hght eye^ CttJ. 
ofl^the right hand, Put a kn'/fe to thy thn/at In con- 
sidering expressions like these, our views of tlie 
worth of life, and of our corporeal members, 
which were given to us for the most important 
use : our views of duty as to the pieservation of 
life and usefuhiess : and our knowledge of the 
nature of the Christian Eeligion in general, all 
conspire to lead us to reject the literal sense, 
and give to them a figurative meaning. When 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 14:9 

our Saviour says, ** I am the vine, ye are 
the branches ;' " I am the door," ^^ I am 
the good shepherd," no one thinks of under- 
» standing him literally. Common sense teach- 
es us to interpret these expressions fig«ratively, 
because taken literally they are utterly uninteli- 
gible. And does not common sense teach the 
same thing in regard to another deeiaratlon of our 
Lord respecting the sacramental bread, na,mely, 
^'This is my body?" When this language was 
first uj;tered, Christ's body had not been broken, 
nor his blood shed -. the bread and wine used 
^^w at the institution of the sarcrameiat could 
not have been a part of Christ's real body and 
blood, and the apostles could not have under- 
stood him as so affirming. And the supposition 
that the sacramental elements, are now after 
consecration converted into the real body and 
blood of Christ is utterly repugn;ant to reason 
and common sense, for not only is such a mirac- 
ulous change improbable in itself, but it is con- 
tradicted by all our senses : for our sight, our 
taste and our smeil testify that the consecrated 
elements have none of the properties of flesh 
and blood, but all tko properties of bread and 
wine which they possessed before consecration. 
^' Let the dead bnry their dead," Common sense 
teaches that this declaration must be understood 
tropically, because a literal interpretation in- 
volves an impossibility. The connexion shows 
that a metaphor is employed in the subject of the 
proposition and that the meaning is, Let those 
who are spiritually dead (the worldly-minded^ 
who are concerned only about the thing? of the 
present life.) attend to the burial of those who 
are corporeally dead. Chrki)^Bs arje called '*liv- 



150 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

ing stones/' They are exhorted to ^^pni on the 
armor of light/' and to gird up the loins of their 
minds.'' In all these places the connexion of 
each word shows that a figure has been em- . 
ployed. Taken alone, disconnected from the 
context and subject of discourse, the language 
of the predicates might be fignrative or it n^ight 
be literal • but in the connexion in which thej 
stand, the literal interpretation would be incon- 
gruous. This leads to the remark that words 
may be ascertained to be tropical not only by 
the incongruit}^ of the subject with its adjuncts^ 
but by the general context and parallel expres- 
sions. Thus Jeremiah 9: 7, "Behold, I will yneli 
them and try them." Here the latter verb de- 
termines the former to be figurative ij> its signi' 
fication. Different terms, n>oreover, are fre* 
quently employed in different passages to ex- 
press the same ideas. This greatly facilitates 
the distinction between tropical and literal. In 
deriving assistance from this source, it is an im- 
portant principle in regard to parallels, that we 
must cmnjxive their hcrmologovs parts. If they be 
simple propositions, we should compare subject 
with subject, copula with copula, predicate with 
predicate; if syllogisms, antecedents with ante- 
cedents, and consequents with consequents. 
Where simtilar expressions are emplo^^ed in dif- 
ferent places, however, if the one is plainly lite- 
ral, it does not necessarily follow that the other 
is, for the context, or nature of the subject treated 
of, may show that such is not the case; e. g.^ in Heb. 
9 : 20 we have th ^ expression, ^'this is the blood 
of the covenant," and in Matt. 26 : 28 ''for this 
is my blood of the new covenant." In the for- 
mer passage there is no doubt that the wovd 



riOCRATIVE LANGUAGE. 151 

hlood is to be taken in its proper and literal sense, 
for it refers to that which the Jews, by all their 
bodily senses knew to be blood, and nothing 
else; but it does not follow that when the same 
word was applied by our Saviour to the ^k char istic 
wine^ it was used in its proper s^nse, or that 
the disciples who by all their senses, knew it to 
be wine, and nothing but wine, must have un- 
derstood it in that sense. The rock which Moses 
smote in the desert, was literally what the term 
imports, and in speaking of it he used the word 
rock in its proper sense; b«t when St. Paul (1 
Cor. 10: 4) applies the same word to the anti-type 
Christ, no one would maintain that anything more 
i-s asserted than typical similarity. Once more: 
Cod gave the Israelites ir€<a:(:(/rom A^^??^n,and Christ 
gives his disciples breadfrora heaven. But the latter 
is a very different thing from the manna; indeed 
the vvoi-d is plainly used in that case figuratively. 
As it regards the language of Scripture em- 
ployed to portray the realities of the invisible 
world and of a future state, it has been a ques- 
tion how far it is to be taken literally and 
how far figuratively, and some writers have 
been guilty of gross inconsistency in admitting 
that the language which describes the heavenly 
world and its felicities is figurative, while that 
which describes the world of woe and its pun- 
ishments is literal. But "in examining whether 
language be tropical or not, we necessarily carry 
along with us those ideas which spring out of 
innate tendencies in the mind. Thus in read- 
ing the Scripture language concerhing the na- 
ture of Deity, we instinctively separate from it 
whatever is material, or appropriate to humani- 
ty. The spirituality of his character leads us at 



152 riGFRATIVE LAN6FAGE. 

once to understand tropically the descriptions 
of his character; so also the invisible realities of 
futurity, as heaven and hell, the state of the 
righteous and that of the miserable are de-linea- 
ted in tropical diction. Such things could not 
have been described otherwise than in language 
borrowed from sensible, material things, else 
it would have been unintelligible. Had ab- 
stract phraseology been en>ployed, we should 
not have been able to attach to it definite con- 
ceptions. A spiritual vocabulary of this sort is 
not in use among us. We are accustomed to 
borrow the language of external nature, and to 
adapt it to incorporeal agents with their acts and 
operations. The wisdoifn of God is quite appar- 
ent in describing his own nature, as also the 
heavenly and infernal worlds, in tropical diction. 
Hence we explain such expressions as their worm 
die^k not and the fire is not quenched^ eixerlasting fire^ 
&c.^ metaphorically to denote intense torment. 
The imagery is taken from the death and cor- 
ruption of the body. Carcases were destroyed 
by fire or eaten by worms. Now this is trans- 
feiTed to the soul, with the superadded idea of. 
perpetuity. The state of the miserable, who 
shall be excluded from the presence of God, is 
©ne of active, intense and corroding torment for- 
ever and ever. The "lake of fire," (Rev. 20 : 15) 
and "furnace of fire," (Matt. 13 : 42, 50) express 
the same idea^ viz., intensity of sufering. Of the 
same nature is the phraseologj^' employed re- 
specting the judgment seat of Christ, before 
which assembled millions of human beings 
stand. The opening of the books out of which 
they are judged, the right and left hand of the 
judge, are tropical also. Thus^ attention must 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 153 

always be given to the nature of the subject, 
in regaixl to which it is inquired whether lan- 
guage is figurative or otherwise."^ 

The student of the Bible should be able not 
only to detect figurative language, but rightly to 
tnulerstand and explain it. His progress in this 
direction will be greatly facilitated, 1. By becom- 
ing intimately acquainted with the sources from 
which the Sacred writers principally drew their 
imagery. These are four, viz., nature^ common life^ 
the political and religious institutions of the Hebrews^ 
and their history. In borrowing imagery from 
t^atural objects, the Hebrew writers generally and 
the poets in particular, selected such as were 
well know^n and familiar to their readers. The 
perspicuity of language, indeed, will be found 
in a great measure to depend on^this , for a prin- 
cipal use of metaphors is to illustrate the subject 
by a tacit comparison ; but if, instead of familiar 
objects and ideas, an author introduces such as 
are new, or unfamiliar and imperfectly under- 
stood, in order to shed further light on what 
is already in a good degree plain ; instead 
of making the subject clearer, he only renders 
it more involved and obscure. Thus the familiar 
images of light and darkness, are very frequently 
employed in Scripture to denote respectively 
good and evil, joy and sort^ow, prosperity and 
adversity, knowledge an I ignorance. Christ is 
called ''the light of the world,'' and "the sun of 
righteousness." The Psalmist says, "God is a 
sun and shield." The apostle St. Paul describes 
the new moral creation of the Gospel in highly 
figurative terms drawn from the creation of the 

♦Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 286 — 288. 



154 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE* 

material world. 'God who commanded the 
light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in 
our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of 
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 
Images are also derived from rivers and foun- 
tains, and the earth recreated with rain. The 
scarcity of water, the paucity of showers, and 
the extreme heat of the summer, together with 
the remarkable fertility of the soil, rendered 
these much more elegant and jocund compari- 
sons in the East than with us. Hence, to repre- 
sent distress, such frequent allusions among them 
to "a dry and thirsty land where no water is ;" 
and hence, to describe a change from distress to 
p osperity, th ir metaphors and comparisons are 
founded on the falling of showers, and the burst- 
ing forth of springs in the desert. Thus we find 
the blessings of the Gospel spoken of by the Sa- 
cred writers under the images of fountains of 
water, rivers and copious showers. The numer- 
ous figures derived from the mountains of Pales- 
tine must be familiar to every reader of the Bi- 
ble. Lebanon and Carmel. in particular, the 
one remarkable for its height, magnitude and 
the abundance of the cedars which adorned its 
summit, exhibiting the appearance of strength 
and majesty; the other, rich and fruitful, 
abounding with vines, olives and delicious fruits 
in a high state of cultivation, and displaying 
the attractive appearance of fertility, beauty 
and grace, furnish the Hebrew poets w^ith the 
most appropriate similes and beautiful meta- 
phors. In the images of the awful and ter- 
rible with which the writings of the inspired 
poets abound, they plainly drew their descrip- 
tions from that violence of the elements and 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 155 

those concussions of nature, with which their 
their climate made them familiar. Earthquakes 
were not unfre(iuent, and sometimes were ac- 
companied with land slides. To these the 
Psalmist alludes^ when he speaks of "the moun- 
*ain-s being carried into the midst of the sea," 
(Ps. 46 : 3,) and of their skipping like lambs, and 
the little hills like young sheep," (Ps. 114: 4, 6.) 
Tornadoes, ibllowed by tliunder, lightning, rain, 
and hail, were also very common during the win- 
ter season in Judea and Arabia, far exceeding 
anything of the kind which occurs in more tem- 
perate regions. To such phenomena Isaiah al- 
ludes when he says of the wicked, "The whirl- 
wind shall take them away as stubble," (Isa. 40: 
24), "Chased as the chaft of the mountains be- 
fore the wind, and like a rolling thing (sfubble) 
before the whirlwind." (Isa. 17: 13), (Ps. 83: 13.) 
The illustrations drawn from the manners^ cus^ 
oms, arfs, occupations and circimistances of common- 
hfe among the Hebrews, are innumerable, i^im- 
plicity and uniformity characterize these in the 
gi'eatest degree. There existed not that variety 
of studies and pursuits, of arts, conditions and 
employments, which may be observed amongst 
other nations who boast of superior civili- 
zation. Separated fi'om the rest of makind by 
their religion and laws, and not at all addicted 
lo commerce they were contented with the few 
arts which were necessary to a simple and uncul 
tivated, or rather uncorrupted, state of life. 
Their chief employments were agriculture and 
the care of cattle and sheep ; they were a nation 
of husbandmen and shepherds. Hence not 
even the greatest among them esteemed it mean 
or derogatory to be employed in the various oc- 



156 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

cupations of rural labor, the products of which 
constituted the wealth of each individual. In 
the Scripture history we accordingly read of 
eriiinent persons called to the highest and most 
sacred offices, heroes, kings and prophets, from 
the plough and from the stalls, (see Judg. 3:31, 
6:11; 1 Sam. 9 : 3, 11 : 5 ; 2 Sam. 7:8; Ps. 78 : 
72, 73; 1 Kings 19: 19, 20; Amos 1:1, 7: 14, 15.) 
Frequent allusions are made to pastoral and ag- 
ricultural occupations. Thus Jehovah is de- 
scribed as Si shepherd^ (Ps. 23:1), and is repre- 
sented as threshing out the heathen as corn, 
trampling them under his feet and dispersing 
them. In the New Testament, the world is com- 
pared to a field; the children of the wicked 
one, to tares ; the end of the world, is the har- 
vest; the angels are reapers ; the preacher of the 
Gospel is a sower ; the Word of God is the seed; 
the heart of man is the soil; the cares, riches 
and pleasures of life are thorns; the preparation 
of the human heart by penitence, is ploughing 
and breaking up the fallow ground. An abun- 
dance of metaphors occur in the Sacred writings 
drawn from the religious institutions of the Hebrews. 
The Epistle to the Hebrews abounds with ima- 
gery drawn from this source, from which it is ap- 
parent that the entire system of ritual institu- 
tions under the Mosaic law, while it subserved 
other important ends, was symbolical of the fu- 
ture dispensation of the Gospel and the sacrifi- 
ces and expiations typical of the one great sac- 
rifice and expiation for the sins of mankind 
offered upon the cross. As examples of the use 
of historical facts to represent spiritual truths, 
we may instance the following : The moral ren- 
ovation of the human heart is represented un- 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 157 

dor the figure of a new creation, in allusion to 
the original physical creation described in Gen- 
esis. The lilting up of Christ on the Cross is 
compared lo, if not typified by, the lifting up of 
the brazen serpent in the wilderness. The nii- 
raculous supply of manna in the desert, is made 
a symbol of that rue bread which came down 
from heaven and which is the life of the soul. 
The wanderings of the Israelites in their jour- 
ney to Canaan, are represented as emblematical 
of the pilgrimage of the peo[)le of God to the 
licayenly Canaan. Thus we see that in order to 
I?erceive the significancy, force and beaiity of the 
sacred imagery, the Biblical student must trans- 
port himself in imagination to the theatre of 
Scripture events, and familiarize ?iimself with 
tlie physical geography of Palestine, theantiqui^ 
ties of the Jews, their ai'ts, maimers and occu- 
pations, their political and religious institutions, 
and their history. 2. Assistance may often be 
obtained in determining the meaning of Scrip- 
ture tropes by consult'tng the proximate context i 
Sometimes we discover by this means^ that the 
speaker or writer has himself made known his 
intention by finnishing an explanation of his 
language. Thus wlien Jesus admonishes his 
hearei's(iMatt. II :29) to take liis ?/o/.-^upon them,- 
he adds,- and learn of we^ hy wliich he clearly 
sliows that by thefiguiative term i/oke he meant 
the morfil prece[)ts which he ta tight. The Apos- 
tl<» St. Paul, aftpr inquiiing of those who had 
once been deVoted to the practice of vice.- (Ronij 
6 ; 21) "\vhiMfrvit had ye then ?" shows by imme- 
diately adding "for the end of these things is 
(h'ath, ' that frvU here signifies figuratively re- 
sult, adcantage or reicard. The same insj)irtd 



158 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

Apostle in Phil. 3 : 2, says, "Beware of dogs/' and 
the tropical application of the word dogs to false 
and audacious teachers is made evident by what 
follows, ''beware of evil-workers." Conip. Kev, 
22 : 15. In like manner in James 4 : 4, the words 
"adulterers and adulteresses," i-efer not to actu- 
al adultery, but to an undue attachment to world- 
ly things, as appears, not only from the context 
generally, but also irom what immediately fol- 
lows: "Know ye not that the friend^ship of the 
woild is enmity with God." When Jesus com- 
pares (Matt. 27, 2cS) the Pharisees towhited sep- 
ulchres, making a fair show outwardly, but in 
ternally full of bones, filth and corruption, lie 
himself immediately adrls an explanation of the 
figui-e, "so ye also without appe^ar,'" meaning evi^ 
dently that they j)uton the external appearance 
of probity and virtue, while their minds weie 
fall of improbity and injustice. So the a[«ostle 
Paul, in his valedictoiy address to the presby^ 
ters of the Ephesian Chmch, (Acts 20: 28)showjg 
in the prop r and tiopical terms which he alter^ 
nately employs, that by the fl<>ck which he com- 
mancls them to watch over, he means the church 
of Christ, the associated oiganic body of Chiist- 
ians; and hence the verb ^o /^^tv/ muf^t be inter? 
pretecj in the sense of to rule, to insivvct, and to 
provide for the spiritual wants of tl^e church, 
in 1 Pet. 3 :^l the havlisrH which saves us is de- 
fined to be ''not the putting away of the filth of 
tlje flesh, but the answer oi a good conscience 
towards God." \\\ flosea 4 : 12. a sjririt of hiscivr 
lousness is said to have drawn the Istaelites 
astray; but then it is inimediately added "Hiey 
sacrifice upon the to|)S of the mouii tains, and 
burn incense upon the bills, " to show that it is 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 159 

spiritual unfaithfulness of which the prophet is 
speaking When Christ said, "He that eateth 
nie, even he shall live by me," J'ohn G : 57, the 
Jews misunderstood his meaning, but he had 
himself already explained it; foi- in the same 
discourse he had lepeated the truth in literal 
terms, ''lie that helicreth on me liath everlasting 
life," V. 47. This text is understv)od literally by 
most Roman Catholic writers, though our Loid 
expressly gave it this figurative interpretation, 
and the ordinance of the Supper, to which they 
suppose it to refer, had not then been instituted 
and was entirely unknown to his hearers. Whore 
no direct and explicit interpretation of tropical 
language is furnished by the author himself, we 
may sometimes ascertain the meaning by the 
help of contrasted expiessions. Thus, Matt. 7 : 9, 
our -Saviour does not expressly say what he 
means by a sione instead of bread, and serpent in- 
stead of a Jish. But at v. 11, he explains biead 
and fish as meaning generally ^o^f/^(,'<7V^, things 
nsei'ul and salutary : hence we may conclude 
fiom the opposition, that by the stone and the 
serpent are meant objects either xiseless or per- 
nicious. It is not ur.common for the Sacred 
writers to subjoin to tropical expressions pio- 
per ones of similar import, so as to explain 
the imagery they have just employed. Espe- 
ciall)^ is this the case in the parallellisms of 
sentimient or thought — rhythm wliicli is a pro- 
inent characteiistic of Hebrew ])oet]y. '1 bus 
Ps. 97:11, "Light is sown foi- the righter)U3 
and gladness for the upiight" I]( re tlie lir^t 
Hiensber of the cou])lot is tropical, arid tlie seC' 
ond which is literal, explains it. Isa. 45:11, 
^'Calling from the east, the eac/h] fioui a distant 



160 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

land, the m.an of my piirpose.^^ Here the eogle in 
the 'ormer member, a term figur; tively applied 
to Cyrus, is explained in the latter by the man of 
my purpose. Sometimes the sense of tropical 
expressions may be gathered from the antece- 
dents or consequents. We ha^e an example 
of the former in Matt. 7 : 3, 4, where the figures 
mote and beam occur without particular explana- 
tion. If we refer to vs. 1, 2, and consider that 
the object of the divine teacher was evidently 
to warn men against forming rash or unchaiita- 
ble judgments of others, it. will at once appear 
that the mote is used for the minor offences of 
othei's, and the beam for the greater faults of 
ourselves. We have an example of the latter 
in Matt. 9 : 38, where Jesus exhorts his disciples 
to pray, that God would send laborers into his 
harueM, he immediately shows by selecting twelve 
apostles from among them, and conmiisisioning 
them to preach the glad tidings ol* the kingdom, 
(ch. 10: 1, 7) that by harvesthe means figurative- 
ly not as some suppose, the propagation of his 
l-eligion, but the multitude of persons Who lis- 
tened attentively to liim, and thereby gave a 
reasonable ground to hope that they w-ere ripe 
for conversion. 

3. In discovering the meaning of tropes assist^ 
ance may often be dei-ived from parallel passaye.^. 
Thus in Mark 10: 38, 3U, the cup and the baptism 
\vhich were to be received by the Apostles Jolm 
and James, are the privations and suffering.^ 
wdiich they were to undergo, as clearly appears 
from a comparison of the parallel texts, Matt. 
26 : 39, John 18 : 11, Luke 12 : 50. There is, 
moreover, another class of texts, which though 
they cannot be considered as strictly parallel, 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 161 

raay still be advantageously employed in dis- 
covering the sense of tropes. Thus the denun- 
ciation of St. Paul to the High Priest, (Acts 23 : 
3) ''God will smite {i. e. punish) thee thou whited 
wall, may have light thrown upon it from Matt 
23: 37, where our Saviour compares the Phari- 
sees generally to ic kited sepulchres. Here it ap- 
pears that the idea intended in both passages is 
that of the worst hypocrisy. 

4. It is necessary also to a right understanding 
and interpretation of tropes, to consider the par- 
ticular points of similitude existing between the 
sign and the thing signified and specially alluded 
to by t4ie speaker or writer. Examples of com- 
parison are not to be taken entiiely and in all 
possible relations, else they would cease to be 
examples and become the things themselves. 
They should not be extended beyond the point 
or points of r-esemblance evidently intended by 
the speaker or writer, as shown by the context, 
and technically called the tertlum comparationis. 
Thus, if Christians are represented under the 
figure of lamhs or sheep, the poi-nts of comparison 
ai*e innocence, patience and gentleness. God is fre- 
quently styled a king and a shepherd; the points 
of similitude in such cases are guidance, protection^ 
{authority, and accordingly we may substitute for 
them the proper terms, governor, guide or pro- 
tector. iSt. Paul (Rom. 12: 1) exhorts the Ro- 
man cbiMstians to present their bodies a living sa- 
crifice to God Here, the qualifying term liviyig^ 
the context and common sense show, that he is 
speaking of self-immolation. We must, there- 
fore, exclude the idea of sacrifice in any proper 
sense, and substitute the notion o^ dedication and 
presentation to God. A tropical expression may^ 
11 



162 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGB. 

indeed, have several meanings and suggest vari- 
ous comparisons, but such only are pertinent in 
a particular locality as harmonize with the con- 
text. When Jesus says (John 6 : 35) "I am the 
bread of life," adding by way of explanation, 
"he that cometh to me,'' &c., he plainly indi- 
cates that he would make provision for all the 
spiritual necessities of men : so that whoever 
should be united to him by faith and obedience^ 
would enjoy true happiness, together with all 
necessary safeguards to his salvation, and would 
neither require nor w^ish for anything else. The 
point of comparison lies, therefore, in tho prop- 
erty of bread to nourish men, preserve life and 
support the sinking strength. 

Again, when the apostle Paul (I Thes. 5 : 2) 
says that the second coming of the Lord will be 
" like a thief in the night," the words which fol- 
low, "when they shall say peace and safety, then 
sudden destruction cometh upon them," show 
that it will come unexpectedly upon men, who 
are not thinking of it, just as a thief glides by 
night into the houses of those who sleep secure- 
ly and anticipate no evil. Com p. Matt. 24 : 43, 
Luke 12: 39. When Jesus, in his address to the 
pious women who followed him (Luke 23 : 31), 
after denouncing a miserable fate on the city 
and inhabitants of Jerusalem, adds, " for if these 
things be done in b.^ green tree, what shall be done 
in a dry ?" it is clear from Ezek. 20 : 47 and 21:3, 
and comparing for the sense 1 Pet. 4: 17, that 
by the green tree is meant an innocent and righteous 
person^ the cause of safety to others; and by the 
dry. a wicked person, the cause of injury to others. 
And if we examine more carefully the passages 
in Ezekiel, we shall readily discover what is the 



FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 163 

point of comparison between men and trees, ancj 
will find that it lies in their good or bad quali- 
ties, as being the cause why we think a dry and 
barren tree ought to be cut down, and why a 
worthless and hurtful man is deserving of de- 
struction. The sense of the passage in St. Mat- 
thew thus becomes clear. ''If ihe innocent and 
righteous be thus cut off, what may be expected 
to befall tlie wicked and disobedient in the day 
of visitation which impends over you." 

While the figurative meaning of a word has 
doubtless some reference to its literal si.nifica- 
tion, it must not be supposed to include in the 
figurative use all that is included in the literal : 
similitude in some one respect, as we have seen, 
is sufficient to justify the metaphor. Sin is 
called in Scripture a debt; atonement, the pay- 
ment if a debt; pardon, the forgiveness of a 
debt. But we would err if we should interpret 
these terms so rigidly as to maintain that, bcr 
cause Christ died for man's sin, therefore all 
will be saved, or have a legal claim to forgiyeness 
and eternal life, for this would be ojDposed to the 
analogy of Scripture. Again, men are represent- 
ed figuratively as dead J.n sins, but it would be 
erroneous to infer that they are dead in such a 
sense as to be exempted from the duty of repent- 
ance, or are guiltless if they disregard the di- 
vine call, for this w^ould be contrary to the whole 
tenor of Scripture, as well as the dictates of com- 
mon sense. More errors, perhaps, have arisen 
from pushing analogical expressions to an ex- 
treme, far beyond what the speaker or writer 
intended, than from any other single cause. 
Against this tendency the sober,earnest studentof 
the Bible needs to be be specially upon his guard. 



164 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

5. Ernesti and other writers on Interpretation 
have laid down the following rule for determin- 
ing whether figurative language is understood or 
not, viz., to substitute proper words for tropical ones, 
"Not," says Ernesti, '' that a person who can do 
this always rightly understands the words, but if 
he cannot do it, he certainly does not understand 
them." Undoubtedly the very attempt to do 
this may lead to greater discrimination in our 
ideas; and in many cases we may thua succeed 
in coming at the exact meaning and force of the 
metaphor. But in a multitude of instances the 
substitution of proper diction for figurative in 
the Scriptures is impossible. When the Sacred 
writers employ metaphorical language to con- 
vey to our minds some conception of spiritual 
things, of the realities of the invisible world 
and a future state, they do it not from choice 
and for the sake of ornament, but from the ne- 
cessity of the case, because there are no literal 
terms of equivalent import, in which to express 
such spiritual truths. We may indeed, change 
the figure, but this is only like turning liquid 
from one vessel into another. No doubt each 
word and phrase of Scripture employed in rela- 
tion to spiritual truths, sets forth a definite sen- 
timent with precision and certainty. No tropi- 
cal word is entirely destitute of meaning, or 
serves as a mere expletive. Each has its use 
and performs its appropiiate office as far as hu- 
man language can, though we may not be able 
to discover the one or to perceive clearly the 
other. 

6. We may remark further, that important aid 
towards the understanding of the figurative lan- 
guage of the Scriptures as well as discovering 



fTGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 165 

its beauties, may be derived from the cultivation 
of the imagination. '' Imagination is that power 
by which we form images or pictures to be seen 
by the eye of the mind, as the objects of the 
outward world are seen by the bodily eye. 
It was through the imagination that a large part 
of the revelations recorded in the Bible were 
made to those holy men, who have transmitted 
them unto us. Divine revelations were addressed 
to the minds of the prophets by symbols set be- 
fore them in visioas and dreams, and the events 
of their daily life. Now it is imagination alone 
that can reproduce these symbols to the mind 
of the reader, so that they may be clearly appre- 
hended, and stand out before his mind as they 
did before the mind of the prophet. Moreover, 
imagination looks into the soul and living prin- 
ciple of things, discerns those moral ideas, or spir- 
itual truths, which they are fitted and designed 
to express. The poet and the clown may both 
look at the same outward object, e. g. the west- 
ern sky at the time of some brilliant sunset ; but 
the one sees in it only what strikes his bodily 
eye, while the other may see in it the emblem 
of the gateway to the celestial city."* These re- 
marks apply with peculiar force to the poetic 
books of Scripture. 

7. Finall}^ it is important in the interpretation 
of figurative language, to remember the inadequa- 
cy of figures of speech, or of any sensible sym- 
bols, fully to express spiritual truth. Without 
comparisons and figures indeed we could have 
no ideas at all of spiritual, invisible, and heaven- 

*Robie on Figurative language of scripture in Bib- 
liotheca Sacra, vol. 13 p. 321. 



166 HEBREW IDIOMS. 

ly realities. At the same time it should be rd- 
inembered that the imaoje of invisible things i^ 
at best, but very imperfectly and inadequateljr 
represented by language borrowed from material 
things. And not only so ; there are many spir- 
itual truths which require many different fig- 
ures, in order rightly, in some measure, to ex- 
press their fullness and greatness. Thus all our 
language with regard to the Supreme Being is 
figurative. " God is a spirit," " God is a rock," 
''God is a high tower," "God is a dwelling 
place," "God is a sun and shield." Yet no one of 
these figures, nor all possible figures put togeth- 
er; can adequately represent God to us. In all 
such cases, therefore, we must rest satisfied 
w^ith the general idea arising from the particular 
comparison or comparisons employed, and neith- 
er on the one hand, seek for a perfect agreement 
in the object compared, nor, on the other, imag- 
ine that we fully comprehend that object, be- 
cause we may be able to understand to some ex- 
tent the import of a particular irtiage employed 
to picture it to our minds. 



CHAPTER XVT. 

HEBREW IDIOMS. 



Every language has some forms of expression, 
some characteristic modes of clothing ideas, pe- 
culiar to itself, and called the idioms of the lan- 
guage. The Hebrew language abounds in pecu- 
liarities of this sort, and it is impossible even for 
the English reader to attain to a correct under- 



HEBREW IDIOMS. 167 

'standing of the meaning of Scripture without 
some knowledge of them ; for in our standard 
English version, instead of being exchanged for 
equivalent expressions in our own language^ 
they are to a considerable extent tt-anslated lit- 
erally. Such expressions are consequently to be 
interpreted not according to the English, but 
according to the Hebrew idiomatic usage. This 
Hebraistic style pervades the New Testament 
no less than the Old, because though the New 
Testament writers composed their Sacred books 
in Greek, yet being native Jews they naturally 
■expressed theif thoughts in the Hebrew style 
and manner in which they had been educated, 
and with which they were most familiar. The 
following are a few examples of the Hebraisms 
A:vhich occur in the Scriptures, and which for 
the most part have been transferred in our Eng- 
lish Bible. 

One striking instance is the use of the limit- 
ing noun (the genitive) in regimen with anoth- 
er noun. The relations which the former bears 
to the latter are much more various in Hebrew 
than is customary in English. Sometimes the 
genitive denotes the possessor, sometimes the 
object, and at others the ag'^n^; and not unfre- 
quently it qualifies the governing noun as an 
adjective. Thus the phrase "the love of God,'' 
tvhen employed in relation to man. according 
to the English idiom would signify the love 
which God bears to us; but in the Bible it fre- 
quently signifies the love which we bear to God. 
In 1 Cor. 1:5, St. Paul says "the sufferings of 
Christ abound in us.' He does not mean by 
this expression the sufferings endured by Christ 
himself in our behalf, but those which are en- 



168 HEBREW IDIOMS. 

dured by Christiana /*or or on account of him. Tlie 
corresponding English expression would be suf- 
ferings for the sake of Christ. The same is in- 
tended by the apostle when he calls himself ''a 
prisoner of Christ." He was a captive for or on 
account of him In his Epistles he frequently 
speaks of "the righteousness of God," denoting 
thereby not subjectively an attribwte or property 
of the divme nature, but objectively the righteo«s- 
ness by which the sinner is pardoned, or the 
method of justification through the perfect 
righteousness and all sufficient merits of Christ, 
This is called God's righteousnes**^ because he gra- 
ciously provided and accepts it. In Col. 2:11, "tbi^ 
circumcision of Christ," means not the circum- 
cision, which he himself endured, but the circum- 
cision of the heart enjoined hy him. The phrase 
"horn of salvation" signifies a horn (the em- 
blem of power among the Hebrews, borrowed 
from their pastoral life,) which is the procuring 
cause of salvation ; or it may be equivalent to 
the expression, ''a powerful Saviour." The cus- 
tom of employing nouns in regimen for adjec- 
tives was very common among the Hebrews, in 
consequence chiefly of the paucity of qualifying 
and limiting terms in their language. Thus the 
apostle, addressing the Thessaloniana, (1 Thes. 
1 : 3) speaks of th^'ir "patience of hope," mean- 
ing their patient hope or expectation. The expres- 
sion "glory of his power" occurs for glorious pow- 
er^ "newness of life," for new life, "spirit of pro- 
mise,'' iov promised spirit^ " bond of perfectuess/' 
for perfect bond. 

Sometimes two nouns are joined by a copula, 
tive, apparently indicating two distinct things 
when only a single thing is really asserted {Hen^ 



Hebrew idioms. 169 

fl'aJi/s), one of the nouns being employed as a 
limiting term. Thus in Acts 23: 6, the apostle 
Paul says, 'Of the hope and resurrection of the 
dead I am called in question, ' by which he 
means the hope of the resurrection of the dead. 
The phrase ''kingdom and glory"' is used to de- 
note a glorious kingdom. We are informed in 
Acts 14: 13, that the priests of Jupiter brought 
'•oxen and garlands,'' to their gods. The oxen 
were decoratad with the garlands, and the pre- 
cise idea is indicated by the phrase oxen crowned 
with garlands. Many Commentators explain 
by this grammatical figure, the expression in 
Matt. 3 11, "He shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire," i. e. a burning spirit — a 
spirit who is a power penetrating and all-purify- 
ing as the element of fire. The context, how- 
ever, strongly favors a diif'erent interpretation, 
based on the supposition that the connective 
particle should be taken in a disjunctive sense ; 
thus, ''He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit 
or with fire." i. e. he will copiously imbue you 
with the influences of the Holy Spirit, if you 
yield your heai'ts to him; or else, if you reject 
him, he will overwhelm you with the severest 
f)unishment. The word 7m7)ie is frequently used 
as synonymous with person. Thus to believe on 
the vame of Christ (Jo. 1 ; 12) is to believe on hint. 
iSbw/also is put iov person, as being the more impor- 
tant part of man. In Acts 2: 41. it is said, that 
there were added unto them about three thou- 
sand souls," i. e., persons. In consequence of 
there being no superlative in their language, 
the Hebrews employed the additional words of 
or to God, or of the Lord, in order to denote 
the greatness or excellency of a thing. Thus in 



l70 HEBfeijw iDtbMs* 

Oen. 13 : 10. 2i beautiful garden is called the garderk 
of the Lord" ; very high mountains are called 
*' the mountains of God." In Ps. 80: 10. the tall- 
est cedars are termed in the original *' the cedars 
of God." In Ex. 9 : 28. loud thunderings is in the 
original " the voices of God." In Jonah 3 : 2. 
Nineveh is termed an exceeding great city^ which 
in the original is " a city great to God." In Acts 
7 : 20. Moses is said in the original to be *' fair to 
God," ^. e., as it is correctly rendered in our wev- 
slow, exceeding iiuv. In the last four examples 
our Translators have departed from their u.<ual 
custom of giving a literal rendering and thus 
transferring idiomatic expressions, and have ex- 
pressed the sense in language accordant with 
our own usage. In 2 Cor 10:4. The weapons 
of the Christian's warfare are declared to be 
*' mighty to God," i. e.^ exceedingly powerful, 
bot mighty through God. as in our standard ver- 
sion. 

it is in the use of verbs, however, that the 
Hebraic style of the Scriptures is most strikingly 
hiauifest. These verbs frequently indicate not 
the action itself w^hich the word signifies, but 
something approaching or allied to it, the de- 
sire or endeavor to perform it, its commence- 
ment merely, or the giving occasion to it, its 
permission, or the obligation to its performance. 
For example : Things are said to be done where 
there is only the endeavor or inteyition to do them. 
Thus Reuben is said (Gen. 37 : 21) to have de- 
livered Joseph from the hands of his brethren. 
He indeed intended the deliverance of his 
brother, and attempted it but with only partial 
success. Thus too, in Ex. 6 : 18. the magicians 
are said to have done so with their enchant- 



Hebrew idioms. I7l 

tnents, ^. €., they attempted to do so. "Wlioso 
findeth his life," says our Saviour ''shall lose it," 
i c, he who seeks to find, is unduly anxious fol* 
its preservation. 

Sometimes verbs only intimate that the sub- 
ject ^ay^j oc^a5?o?i to the action. Thus in Jere. 
38 : 53. God says to KingZedekiah by the proph- 
et, " Thou shalt be taken by ^he hand of the 
King of Babylon : and thou shalt cause this city 
to be burned with fire ;" i. ^., the conduct of 
the unhappy monarch would lead to this catas- 
trophe. Our Saviour said. '' T came not to bring 
peace on the earth, biat a sword." i. e., my ad- 
vent in the flesh wmII be the occasion of sharp 
persecution find bloodshed. " Tliis child," said 
Simeon. " is set for the fall and rising again, (or 
rather rising) of many in Israel." (Lu. 2 : 34) Tie 
will be the occasion of the fall, the ruin and misery 
of many who will reject his message ; and the 
rise or restoration to spiritual life and happiness 
of many who shall embrace his religion. " The 
W'rathofman says the Psalmist, "shall praise 
God" : — not actually utter his praise, but be the 
occasion of praise being rendered to him. In 
Acts 1 : 18. St. Luke says, that Judas " purchased 
a field with the reward of iniquity," while St. 
Matt, states (ch .27: 6. 7.) that the field was bought 
by the priests and elders with the thirty pie.'es 
of silver "vvhich Judas Iscariot had relumed to 
them. The fact is that jiidas Was no further 
concerned in the transaction, thah that he gave 
occasion for it. The two statements are thus sat- 
isfactorily harmonized. The Word cannot, which 
properly denotes a ;)%5 /<:•«/ inability is frequent- 
ly employed to signify merely a moral inability, 
or indisposition to do a thing. Thus in Ruth 4: 



172 HEBREW IDI03IS. 

6. the near kinsman of Elimelech says, ''I cannot 
redeem his inheritance." Now he could have 
done so, had he been disposed ; for he was evi- 
dently a man of property ; but he was unwilling 
to do it, on account of the pecuniary sacrifices it 
involved. The householder in our Lord's para- 
ble into whose house a friend solicited admission 
at midnight, replies that the door is shut, that the 
children are with him in bed, and that he can- 
not rise. All that he meant by this expression is 
that it was extremley inconvenient to rise and 
therefore he wa^ unwillinir. It is said of our Sav 
iour in Mar. 6 : 5. that "he could do no mighty 
works" (perform no miracles) in a particular dis- 
trict because of the unbelief of its inhabitants, 
i. e., he could not with pleasure and satisiaction 
to himself or profit to others. It was painful to 
him, as well as useless to throw pearls before 
swine. Joseph's brethren it is said "hated him, 
and cou hi not speak peaceably unto hJm." (Gen. 
f\7 : 4.) " I have married a wife, an^ therefore 
I cannot come. ' (Lu. 14 : 20.) In all these instan- 
ces there was obviously no lack of capacity, or 
natural power. The inability was wholly of a 
moral nature, the inability of the will. This 
idiom however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. 
We find it in all languages, ancient and modern. 
In our own language for instance we find the 
word cannot frequently used in two different 
senses; the one expressing what is termed a 
morale the other, a natural, inability ; the one a 
mere inability of disposition and will ; the other 
an inability extraneoas of the ♦vill, and over 
which the will has no power. Thus we ask a 
pious friend to lift up for us a thousand pounds. 
Ue replies; " 1 cannot do it." We ask him to 



HEBREW IDIOxMS. 173 

^o to some place of amusement on the Sabbath ; 
he replies again; ''I cannot do it." In both 
cases he pleads an inability. But it is easy to see 
that here tliere are two kinds of inability. Our 
friend has no natural power to lift a thousand 
pounds. He could not do it if he would. He 
has all the physical power necessary to comply 
with the other request, and only lacks the will- 
ing mind. 

Sometimes verbs are used in a declarative 
sense, denoting the recognition of the thing 
spoken of as having b«^en performed or as being 
about to be. '' Behjld," says Isaac to Esau, '' I 
have made Jacob thy lord, and all his brethren 
have I given him for servants." ((ren. 27 : 37). 
The only agency which the venerable Patriarch 
had in the transaction consisted in announcing 
it. He designed to say, I have declared, (or 
have declaratively made,) Jacob thy lord. 8o 
Jeremiah was set up by God over the nations, 
to root up, pull down and destroy. The Pioph- 
et was not a military conqueror; but as a divme 
messenger he declared wiiat would be accom- 
plished by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. When 
a priest saw on a man signs of leprosy, he was 
required by the law "to pollute, or make him 
unclean," i. e., to pronounce him unclean, as our 
common version, casting oti' the Hebraisim, 
rightly expresses it. In Ps. 2: 7, we have an- 
other example of the declarative use of the 
verb. The Lord hath said tome, Thou ait my 
son ; thi< day have I begotten thee." The im- 
port of the language undoubtedly is : '' This day 
do I declare thee to be begotten by me ; comp. 
Romans 1: 4. ''What God hath clean>ed, 
call not thou conlmon, ' i. e., what God has pro- 



174 HEBREW IDIOMS. 

'flounced clean, that call, &c. Verbs have somer 
times a j^si^missive sense. Thus, Ps. 119: 31, "I 
have adhered to thy testimonies, put me not to 
shame," i e., permit or- suffer me not to be put 
to shame, and reproach. Again, Isa. 62 : 7, 
'' Lord, why hast thou made us to err from 
thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy 
fear" ? This does not mean that by a positive, 
immediate agency God produced the moral 
evils complained of by the prophet ; but that 
he had simply permitted them in his providence. 
In a similir manner we may explain the pe- 
tition in our Lord's prayer, ''Lead us not 
into temptation," i. 5., suffer us not to be 
brought under the power of temptation. The 
declaration that God hardened Pharoah's heart 
is susceptible of a like interpretation. Misapplica,- 
tion of this idiom at one time led some New 
England metaphysical divines to assert as an ar- 
ticle of their belief the monstrous and revolting 
doctrine that unholy as well as holy volitions 
were the immediate effect of divine agency, 
Such are only a few specimens of the very nu- 
merous and various idiomatic ex})ressiong 
which occur in the Scriptures. But these are 
sufficient to show the great importance of a 
careful study of them to the right understandr 
Jng of the sacred volume. 



GENERAL LAWS, &C. 175 

CHAPTER XVII. 

GENERAL LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. 

We now propose to exhibit and illustrate some 
pf the general laws of Biblical Interpretation. 
And first : llie Bible should he interpreted in hor- 
mony with the clear deductions of reason. 

Reason and Revelation have the same author, 
and proceed from the same source of infinite in- 
telligence and truth: they must therefore coin- 
cide in their decisions. They can never really 
come into contrariety. And yet it is well known 
that in some parts of Christendom the attempt 
has been made under cover of the phrase " pure 
reason" to get rid simply by way of interpreta- 
tion, of the plainest facts and doctrines of Rev- 
elation, nay of (Christianity itself. And some of 
the most plausible and mischievous of all attacks 
on revealed religion in recent times, have been 
made under the pretence that its distinguishing 
doctrines as deduced from the plain and obvious 
meaning of its language, are repugnant to rea- 
son. Hence recourse has been had to violent 
and forced interpretation, to metaphor and figure, 
to the doctrine of accommodation and various 
other false schemes, in order to eliminate these 
doctrines from the pages of the Bible. But not- 
withstanding this gross and palpable abuse and 
perversion of Reason, it still remains unques- 
tionably true, that our chief w^eapon for the de- 
fence of Scripture truth is our reason, rationally, 
legitimately and properly used. We may be sure 
that the Spirit of God speaking in and through 
the Scriptures does not in a single instance de- 
sign to assert for truth what is evidently contrary 



176 GENERAL LAWS 

to the clear and acknowledged decisions of rea- 
son properly enlightened and rightly employed. 
But it must ever be borne in mind, that human 
reason is limited and finite. Its sphere of opera- 
tion is circumscribed by certain boundaries 
which it cannot pass. It is possible, therefore, 
that there may be statements in the Bible which 
reason cannot explain, because they lie beyond 
the domain of human comprehension, and are, 
therefore, inscrutable to the mind of man. Nor 
is this merely possible, but from the very nature 
and design of a supernatural Revelation, it is 
highly probable: nay; in point of fact, it is abso- 
lutely certain. But to assert things which hu- 
man rea,son cannot comprehend in their modes, 
is one thing; and to assert things contrary to 
the innate dictates of reason, is quite another 
thing. The latter, we may boldly affirm, the 
Scriptures have never done. There is a class of 
texts which, if construed according to the strict 
letter, might seem to oppose the dictates of rea- 
son. Thus in Heb. 12: 29, we have the declara- 
tion '' God is a consuming fire." The literal 
import of this passage asserts the ancient doc- 
trine of the Persians that God is literally the 
principle of fire. Rut such an interpretation 
would not only contradict the whole tenor of 
Scripture, but be at war with reason and com- 
mon sense. The language therefore, must be 
taken figuratively as descriptive of God's power 
utterly to destroy. J ere. 23 : 24. '' Do 1 not fill 
heaven and earth, saith the Lord ?" This pas- 
sage taken literally would appear to teach Pan- 
theism, than which nothing is more repugnant 
to reason. John 6 : 53, '' Except ye eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have 



OF tNTERPRETAl'ION. 177 

no life in you." The literal interpretation of 
this passage is contrary to reason : it must, there- 
fore, be rejected, and the text understood in a 
figurative and spiritual sense. 

There is another numerous class of texts 
which when literally explained, as they mani- 
festly should be, assert nothing contrary to rea- 
son, but which involve doctrinal truths which 
lie beyond and above the range of the human 
faculties, and are therefore incomprehensible. 
Take for example the doctrine of Divine Omni- 
presence. The doctrine that God is everywhere 
and at all times present, beholding the evil and 
tlie good, is everywhere asserted in the Bible, 
and as a fact is perfectly consonant with the de- 
cisions of reason. But we are no wdiere told 
how he- can be thus every where present, and the 
manner of his omnipresence is beyond the reach 
of our comprehension. Shall w^e then reject 
the plain and obvious meaning of the passages 
which teach the doctrine, and put upon them a 
forced and unnatural interpretation ? Certainly 
not. Again : the Scriptures clearly teach in 
their literal and obvious sense, that the Father, 
the Son and the Ilo'y Ghost, all possess divine 
attributes and perform -separate offices in the 
economy of human redemption. At the same 
time they as clearly and unequivocally assert 
the divine unit3^ Upon these two facts the 
Church doctrine of the Trinity in Unity in the 
godhead is based. Kow the proposition that 
in the godhead, these three persons, so called for 
the want of a better term, are one in precisely 
the same respects in which they are three, and 
three in the same respects in which they are 
^ne, cannot be true, because it is repugnant to 
12 



178 GENERAL LAWS 

reason. But the proposition that the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit, are three in certain re 
spects, and one in certain other respects, is not 
contrary to reason, and therefore may be true. 
That there is numerically but one God is a fact 
which we believe on the clearest testimony of 
Scripture. That the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit are each partakers of the divine nature, 
and therefore are equally entitled to, as they 
justly claim our homage, is also a fact abun- 
dantly established on the same testimony. — 
These two facts we fully receive on the authority 
of the word of God. And we are sure that 
however inexplicable they may be to us, there 
is in them no contradiction. But of the mode 
of the divine existence, as a Trinity in Unity, 
beyond the simple fact, we know ahd can know 
nothing. This is one of those mysteries which 
the Bible has not solved, and about which we 
are not at liberty to speculate. If reason begins 
to cavil and ask, how the Deity can be three 
and one at the same time, it forsakes its proper 
sphere, and would be wise above what is written. 
Of one thing we may be certain, that in the 
statements of Scripture in relation to this or 
any other doctrine there can be nothing contra- 
dictory to right reason. The two must harmo- 
nize, because they both proceed from the same 
author. 

It is also of the highest importance to remem- 
ber that human reason is not onXy finite hut falli- 
Me. "Man is liable to err. He finds himself 
deceived in his judgments of things that take 
place around him. He draws conclusions which 
he afterwards finds to be wrong. The fallibility 
of his reason constitutes him a fallible being. 



OF INTERPRETATION. 179 

Since, therefore, his nature is such, he may form 
wrong opinions respecting the truths of revela- 
tion. He may fail to perceive what is propound- 
ed for his*reception. Finite and imperfect as 
he is, it is not marvellous that he should fre- 
quently go astray in his sentiments. Rather 
would it be a cause of wonder, if he should 
never tax himself with error, or acknowledge 
that his mind does not judge accurately on all 
topics which come before it. Every thing con^ 
nected with him partakes, at present, of imper- 
fection. His soul is tainted with sin, and aliens 
ated from God. His body is liable to decay. 
The Bible is infallible, because its author is so; 
but reason is fallible, because man has corrupted 
his ways, and deteriorated his constitution. He 
is not what he once was. The candle of the 
Lord shines not within him in its original bright- 
ness. The lamp of reason has been dimmed by 
his infatuation. Its beams are not shed forth 
with the same lustre or loveliness as when Jeho- 
vah himself first lighted up the luminary of the 
soul. Let us always, then, bear in mind this 
truth, that reason is fallible ; while the Scrip- 
tures cannot err, either in their propoundings 
of doctrine, or expositions of duty, or statements 
of eternal truth. Of reason's liability to err we 
have ample proof in the fact, that there are im- 
portant differences in the conclusions at which 
its extravagant encomiasts arrive. Far from 
coinciding, the results of their researches are 
widely at variance. Eeason, it is said, teaches 
some to believe that Christ was not a true man, 
consisting of a human soul and a mortal body; 
but that the Logos supplied the place of a soul 
ixx the man Christ Jesus ; others are conducted 



180 GENERAL LAW^ 

by the same guide, to the opinion, that he wa^ 
nothing higher than a man, with a real body 
and a reasonable soul. The innumerable varies 
ties of creed among such as call themselves by 
the common appellation of Unitarians, prove 
the fallibility of the guide to which they aban- 
don themselves. The folly of extending the 
province of reason beyond what is written, is 
abundantly evident. All contradictions between 
Arians and Socinians owe their origin to a dis- 
satisfaction with the amount of Scripture reve- 
lation. They begin to exercise their reason in 
matters beyond what is written; and thus lose 
themselves in speculations no less presumptuous 
than unprofitable. If reason were contented 
to abide by the plain exposition of the written 
word, no perplexity would ensue. Unreserved 
submission to the dictates of Heaven is the 
right and righteous exercise of reason. Partial 
homage, on the contrary, is the sin of such as 
do not cause it to bow with implicit reverence 
to all utterances proceeding from the sanctuary 
of heaven. It is the source of the fallacies and 
the follies of those who permit reason to go be- 
yond the limits assigned to it by Infinite Wis- 
dom. If every doctrine and precept which it 
cannot fathom are to be set aside on the ground 
of their obscurity, the Scriptures will be reduced 
to a very meagre compass. If man were pos- 
sessed ef a pure and perfect reason, by which 
he could discern the relations of the universe, — 
if he could discern the connexion subsisting iDe- 
tween things natural and moral, — if he could 
understand the ways of the Lord unto perfec- 
tion, and the reasons of his dealings with men, 
he might then employ a reason, which could 



OF INTERPRETATION. 181 

accomplish so much, to search out the things 
which are only hinted at in the Bible ; bnt if he 
must be contented with knowing in part here 
below, reason must acquiesce in many circum- 
stances as right and true, although it cannot tell 
why ov ivherefore they are so/'^ 

Second law : The Bible should he interpreted in 
harmoyiy luith the well-established facts of natural 
science. Truth is always in accordance with 
herself. The book of nature and the book of 
Eevelation proceed from the same author, and 
have a common origin. There can never, there- 
fore, exist any absolute and irreconcilable dis- 
crepancy between the laws of nature and the 
disclosures of Divine Eevelation. If there seems, 
in any instance, to be a real discrepancy, it must 
be owing either to a misinterpretation of the 
written record, or to some error in regard to the 
alleged facts of science. With regard to the 
latter, there may have been too hasty a general- 
ization, or a position may have been assumed 
on insufficient evidence, and further discoveries 
on the subject may rectify the erroneous conclu- 
sion. Especially is this remark applicable to 
the comparatively modern, and, as yet, imper- 
fectly developed science of geology. " A natu- 
ral science, while in its infancy, when but par- 
tially developed, while some of its main features 
are still under discussion, is not to be placed on 
the same footing with. sciences whose laws have 
been long established. Its earliest revelations, 
though seemingly adverse to Biblical truth, 
need not occasion alarm or anxiety. The laws 
of philology are to be admitted as unhesitat^ 

* Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics. 



182 GENERAL LAWl3 

ingly as those of any physical science. There is 
the same certainty that the Bible came from 
God as that the solar system did. It would be 
no greater mark of folly to reject the evidence 
on Which the facts of the material sciences rest, 
than that by which Scripture truth is support- 
ed.""^ One thing is certain, no absolute contra- 
diction between physical and Biblical truth has 
yet been established, notwithstanding the prat- 
ing and dogmatizing of some sceptical and half- 
fledged sciolists. It should be constantly borne 
in mind that it is not the design of the sacred 
writers to teach the natural sciences, but moral 
and spiritual truth. Whenever they have occa- 
son, therefore, to allude incidentally to physical 
phenomena, they describe them according to 
apparent truth, in conformrity with the usage 
and imperfect knowledge of the times in which 
they lived, and not with philosophical accuracy. 
Had the language of revelation been scientific- 
ally accurate, it would have defeated the object 
for which the Scriptures were written; for it 
must have anticipated the scientific discoveries 
of a later age, and therefore have been unintel- 
ligible to those for whose benefit they were writ- 
ten, and who were ignorant of such discoveries. 
Professor Maury, indeed, undertook to show 
that the Psalmist, anticipated the modern dis^ 
covery in geography with respect to the spher- 
ical form of the earth. And in proof of this, he 
appealed to Psalm 98 : 8, as rendered in our 
Prayer Book version — ''Let the sea make a 
noise, and all that is therein ; the round worldy 
and they that dwell therein." Now the fact is, 

* B. B. Edwards. 



OP INTERPRETATION. 183 

there is no qualifying word in the original cor- 
responding to round in this translation; the 
only Hebrew word used signifies simply worlds 
considered as the habitation of man : a fact 
which he might have ascertained, had he merely 
consulted the authorized version, where it is 
correctly rendered. Sometimes an apparent 
contrariety exists between the Bible and natu* 
ral science, in consequence of an imperfect or 
inaccurate translation, even in our common ver- 
sion. Take the following examples in chemis- 
try : In Prov. 25 : 20, we find it said that, " as 
vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs 
to a heavy heart." We should infer from this 
statement, that when we pour vinegar upon the 
substance which we call nitre (nitrate of soda) 
it would produce some effervescence, or other 
disturbing influence; but on trying the experi- 
ment, we would find no such result to follow. 
So Jere. 2: 22 — "Though thou wash thee with 
nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thy iniquity 
is marked before me, saith the Lord." Here, 
too, we should expect that the use of nitre or 
saltpetre would increase the purifying power of 
soap; but the experiment would prove the con- 
trary. There is a well-known substance, indeed, 
viz: Carbonate of Soda^ which if substituted for 
the nitre, would effervesce with vinegar, and al- 
so aid the purifying power of soap. Now on re- 
curring to the original we find that the Hebrew 
word "inj, (nether, nitrum or 7iatrum) does not sig- 
nify the salt which we call nitre, but a fossil al- 
kali, the natroji of the ancients, and the carbonate 
or rather sesqui-carbonate of soda of the moderns. 
" Scarcely any truth," says President Hitch- 
cock, '* seems more clearly taught in the Bible 



184 GENERAL LAWS 

than the future resurreetion of the body. Yet 
this doctrine has always been met by a most for- 
midable objection. It is said that the body laid 
in the grave is ere long decomposed into its ele- 
ments, which are scattered over the face of the 
earth, and enters into new combinations, even 
forming a part of other human bodies. Hence 
not even Omnipotence can raise from the grave 
the identical body laid there, because the parti- 
cles may enter successively into a multitude of 
other human bodies. I am not aware that any 
successful reply has ever been given to this ob- 
jection, until chemistry and natural history 
taught us the true nature of bodily identity : 
and until recently the objector has felt sure that 
he had triumphed. But these sciences teach us 
that the identity of the body consists, not in a 
sameness of particles, but in the same kinds of 
elementary matter, combined in the same pro- 
portion, and having the same form and struc- 
ture. Hence it is not necessary that the resur- 
rection body should contain a single particle of 
the matter laid in the grave, in order to be the 
same body; which it will be if it consist of the 
same kind of matter combined in the sa^me propor- 
tions, and has the same form and' structure. 
For the particles of our bodies are often totally 
changed during our lives ; yet no one imagines 
that the old man has not the same body as in 
infancy." 

Until the time of Copernicus no opinion re- 
specting natural phenomena was supposed to be 
more lirmly established, than that the earth is 
fixed immovably in the centre of the universe, 
and that the heavenly bodies move diurnally 
around it : And this opinion was attempted to 



or INTERPRETATION. 1S5 

be established incontrovertibly on tlie authority 
of Scripture in opposition to the Copernican sys- 
tem. In proof of it tlie appeal was made to 
those passages which speak of the sun as moving 
in the heavens, and as rising and setting. (Ps. 
]9: 5. 104: 19. Eccles 1: 5.); to the alleged 
fact that the sun, by a miracle, stood still in the 
time of Joshua. (Josh. 10:. 12-14), and by a 
miracle went back in the time of Ilezekiah. 
(Isa. 38: 8); and to the assertions respecting the 
immovability of the earth, (Ps. 93: 1; 104: 5; 
119 : 90, 91.) But if we only admit that the sa- 
cred writers did not intend to teach scientitic 
instead of popular truth, but that they spoke of 
astronomical phenomena, according to appear- 
ances, and in conformity to common opinion, 
then their language is seen to be perfectly proper 
and consistent with the facts; it conveyed no er- 
ror, and is as well adapted now as ever to the 
common intercourse of life. Hence its use has 
never been laid aside, notwithstanding its appav* 
ent contrariety to the true system of the uni- 
verse. It is no impeachment of the inspiration 
of the sacred writers to admit that in common 
with their countrymen they wei-e ignorant of 
the true principles of astronomy, for upon tlris 
point they had received no information from 
above, and had no oracle to utter. With respect 
to the discrepancies which are alleged to exist 
between the statements of the Bible and the 
modern discoveries in Geology, space will only 
permit me to refer to the admirable work of 
President Hitchcock, entitled "The Religion of 
Geology and its Connected Sciences." "Sci- 
ence," says McCosh, "has a foundation, and so 
lias religion ; let them unite their foundations, 



186 GENERAL LAWS 

and the basis will be broader, and they will be 
two compartments of one great fabric reared to 
the glory of God. Let the one be the outer and 
the other the inner court. In the one, let all 
look, and admire, and adore; and in the other, 
let those who have faith kneel, and pray, and 
praise. Let the one be the sanctuary where hu- 
man learning may present its richest incense an 
offering to God ; and the other the holiest of all, 
separated from it by a V€h1 now rent in twain, 
and in which, on a blood-sprinkled mercy-seat, 
we pour out the love of a reconciled heart, and 
hear the oracles of the living God." 

3. The Bible should be interpreted in Tiarmony with 
OUT intuitive moral judgments. It cannot be at is- 
sue with any of these. If, therefore, it recom- 
mends "the cutting off a right hand, and pluck- 
ing out a right eye," it must not be taken lite- 
rally to mean bodily mutilation. Our life and 
members are a sacred trust committed to us, 
which must not be trifled with. The declara- 
tion of our Saviour, " If any man hate not his 
father and ^mother, and wife and children he 
cannot be my disciple," if interpreted literally, 
would be revolting to our moral sense, and no 
exposition which would sanction the feeling of 
hatred to parents would for a moment be tole- 
rated. We must regard it, therefore, as a strong 
hyperbole denoting the greater love which is 
due to himself 

In St. Luke 10: 4, Christ commands his seventy 
disciples while in the performance of their mis- 
sionary tour, "not to salute any by the way." 
We cannot suppose that our Loixl here intended 
to inculcate rudeness and incivility. Their mis- 
sion required haste ; he therefore enjoins upon 



OF INTERPRETATION. 187 

them not to waste their time in merely compli- 
mentary or courteous addresses, and in holding 
unnecessary intercourse with their friends to 
the neglect of the weightier concerns of their 
sacred vocation Matt. 5: 39. " Whosoever shall 
smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the 
other also/' That the commands in this and 
the following verses are not to be taken literally, 
as enjoining the particular actions here specified, 
and forbidding self-defence, but rather as incul- 
cating the disposition of forgiveness and benevo- 
lence, is apparent not onl}^ from its being usual 
in the East to put the action for the disposition, 
and from the manner in which the precepts are 
introduced, but also from our Lord's own con- 
duct (John 18 ; 22, 23), and that of his Apostles, 
(Acts 23 : 3 ) Not slavishly ^\\d literally, but truly 
and in the spirit^ our Redeemer obeyed this 
precept; for " He gave his back to the smiters, 
and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, 
and hid not his face from shame and spitting," 
(Isa. 50: 6); and his Apostles also did the same, 
(seel Cor. 4: 9-13.) The precept requiring us "not 
to revenge ourselves," foi bids indeed the taking 
of private revenge, but it was not designed to 
forbid judicial punishment. Our Saviour in 
Matt. 5 : 33, commands us to "swear not." Now 
it is evident from the context, that our Lord is 
here not to be understood as forbidding judicial 
oaths, or oaths on solemn occasions and for the 
satisfaction of others, for that would be a mere 
technical Pharisaism wholly at variance with 
the spirit of the Gospel, and inconsistent with 
the example of God himself. (Heb. 6: 13-1?; 7: 
21) ; of our Lord when on earth, and of his Apostles. 
(Gal. 1 : 20. 2 Cor. 1 : 23. Rom. 1 : 9. Phil 1 ; 



188 GENERAL LAWS 

8. and especially 1 Cor. 15: 31); but such oaths 
as are introduced into common conversation, 
and on ordinary occasions, which are not only 
unnecessary but highly ii-reverent. 

On a similar principle are to be explained 
those passages, which exhibit the prophets as 
doing by the command of God things inconsist- 
ent with natural propriet}^ H osea, for example, 
is commanded to marry two impure woaien, and 
Ezekiel to lie on his left side a year and a month , 
looking at an iron pan — and then to turn over 
to his right side, on which he must lie forty ad- 
ditional days, — eating during the whole period, 
a composition of vegetables and grain prepared 
in a manner most decidedly disagreeable. These 
are not to be taken as real transactions, for that 
would both dishonor the word of God and be^ 
tray an utter want of taste. They were doubt- 
less symbolical representations, which passed 
before the prophet's mind in his inspired ecstacy. 

4. The Bible should he inierjjreted in harmony 
with universal experience and. observation. 

This principle requires us to take universal 
terms and expressions in a modified and limited 
sense. Thus absolute expressions often denote 
only what usually takes place — what is accordant 
with general but not universal experience and 
observation. Solomon tells us, for example, in 
Prov. 22: 6, "train up a child in the way he 
should go, and when he is old he will not depart 
from it." This we know does not always hold 
true. Strange as it may appear, Solomon him- 
self at one period of his life, w^as an exception 
to it. Nevertheless it is true generally. And 
the precept loses nothing of its value and im- 
portaace because we are compelled to limit 



OF INTERPRETATION. 189 

somewhat its application. The exceptions only 
proves the rule. 

Sometimes such expressions only denote the 
natural tendency of a thing. Proy. 15: 1: "A 
soft answer turneth aw^ay wrath," i. e., it is evi- 
dently calculated to produce this happy result. 
St. Paul declares that the "goodness of God 
leadeth to repentance." Such is doubtless its 
natural tendency, and such we should reason- 
ably expect would be its consequence; but we 
know that sometimes it produces the very oppo- 
site effect; it corrupts and hardens. At other 
times such expressions merely indicate duty — 
right — official olUgation, Thus, Prov. 16: 10, "a 
divine sentence is in the lips of the king, his 
mouth transgresseth not in judgment." St. Pe- 
ter, in like manner says of the civil magistrate, 
'' he is the minister of God for gooct, a terror to 
evil workers, aiid a praise to them that do well." 
Such declarations show what he ought to bo in 
the exercise of his official functions — w:hat he is 
de jure ; but not what he always is de facto. 
Sometimes we lind assertions broadly made 
that refer only to external character and prof ession. 
Thus all credible professors of the Gospel are 
called "saints," and "holy"; and the sacred 
writers treat them as being what they profess 
and ought to be. 

5. The Bible should be interpreted in harmony icith 
the testimony of our senses. 

Thus when David says that "he is poured out 
like water, and all his bones are out of joint, 
that his heart is melted in the midst of his bow- 
els," it is manifest that a literal pouring out and 
melting cannot be intended, as nothing of the 
kind has ever been witnessed. Again, when our 



190 GENERAL LAWS 

Saviour, in the institution of the Supper, de- 
clares of the bread then in his hand, that it is 
his body, and of the wine, that it is his blood, 
his disciples must have necessarily understood 
him to be speaking not literally, for that v^ould 
have contradicted the clear testimony of their 
senses, but figuratively and symbolically. 

And when Christians in accordance with the 
command of their Lord celebrate this Supper, 
their senses distinctly see, taste, smell, and feel, 
that the sacramental elements are nothing but 
real bread and wine. The Romish doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, therefore, is most clearly 
and unequivocally refuted by the evidence of 
the senses, and hence cannot be true. To be- 
lieve a doctrine in direct and palpable opposition 
to the clear evidence of the senses, is destruc 
tive of all evidence, and can be required of no 
intelligent being. 

6. The Bible should he interpreted in harmony 
with itself. 

Viewed in all its relations, this is by far the 
most comprehensive and important principle of 
Biblical interpretation ; and it is a principle of 
constant application. It requires not only that 
each individual writer should be explained in 
harmony with himself, but also with every other 
sacred writer. Let us apply the principle, in 
the first place, to the composition or composi- 
tions of a particular writer. It is to be presum- 
ed that no judicious and sensible writer will 
contradict himself, or introduce in the course of 
his argument what is entirely irrelevant to his 
immediate purpose, or inconsistent with his 
general design and object. When a passage, 
therefore, is obscure, ambiguous or of doubtful 



THE CONTEXT. 191 

import, the first care of the interpreter should 
be to consult the immediate or proximate context, both 
preceding and following. The context is in the Scrip- 
tures as woll as in all other writings, the prima- 
ry means of discovering the true sense. The 
legal maxim on this subject is thus expressed : 
ex antecedentibus et cons equentlbus Jit optima interpre- 
tation "a passage will be best explained by refer- 
ring to that which precedes and follows it." A 
single sentence plucked rudely from its connex- 
ion in an argument, it matters not from what 
writer, may often be made to express a senti- 
ment which was not only not in the mind of 
the writer and foreign to his intention at the 
time, but which is in contradiction to his real 
sentiments elsewhere expressed, and wholly ir- 
relevant to his course of reasoning. And yet 
this is the manner in which the word of God is 
very frequently treated in homiletics and didac- 
tic theology. In sermonizing nothing is more 
common than to select a text and deduce a sen- 
timent from it as the foundation of a discourse, 
not only in utter disregard of the context, but 
in perfect contradiction to it. Many popular 
preachers, in giving scope to their fancy and im- 
agination, allow themselves to be captivated 
with the mere phraseology of the English ver- 
sion, or with the mere sound of an expression 
without any regard to its real meaning in the 
particular connexion in which it occurs. In the 
departments of didactic and polemic theology, 
it is very frequently the case that isolated pas- 
sages are quoted as proof texts of doctrines, 
which when taken in their connexion are found 
to be quite irrelevant to the subject. What 
should we think if we heard any other book 



192 gi:Keral laWB 

discoursed upon in this way ? or what should 
we think of a judge on the bench expounding 
in this way a legal instrument or statute? The 
civil law has laid down an express canon on this 
subject in which the practice alluded to is strongs 
ly rebuked. Turpe est de lege judicai-e iota lege non 
vispecta. '• It is disgraceful to judge of a l.*iw, by 
examining only a part of it." It is certain that 
many of the controversies which have been car^ 
ried "on with acrimonious zeal in the Christian 
Church, have arisen in consequence of their au- 
thors having overlooked this rule. Had the 
texts which thay hurled against their antago^ 
nists, with, as they verily believed, overwhelm- 
ing force, been first examined in their connex- 
ion, these theological combatants would have 
found themselves deprived of many a weapon 
with which they carried on their wordy warfare* 
Some indeed th< re are, who are iVu" from being 
lawless interpreters, that do not hold the rule 
under consideration in very high estimation 5 
but conceive its use to be confined within very 
narrow limits. But this is by no means an ac- 
curate view of the subject ; for, as Professor Stu- 
art has justly remarked : ''the immediate con- 
text, either preceding, succeeding, or both to^ 
gether, is a rule for judging of the meaning of 
words [and sentences] of the very broadest- ex- 
tent. In very many cases, indeed, the evidence 
of the iisus loquendi is itself built upon the con- 
text. We adopt the opinion, that the usus lo- 
quendi sanctions this or that particular sense, 
because the context clearly shows that such a 
meaning is to be assigned to it, and that no 
other can be given without rendering the sense 
frigid and inept. Moreover, the general scope of 



C^F INTERPRETATION. 193 

an autlioi' does not forbid the admission of a 
great varietj' of arguments, illustrations and epi- 
sodes, into the immediate parts of a di'scourse ; 
50 that one is far more certain of giving a sense 
that is congruous, by consulting the (mmcdtate 
context, than by immediately consulting the gen- 
eral scope of the whole. Both, no doubt, are to 
be regarded : but of the two. the former is by 
far the more important means of assistance. 
Indeed I should doubt whether there is anj^ one 
rule in the whole science of hermeneutics so 
important, and of such practical and actual use 
as the one in question. Great care, indeed, is 
necessary to decide with certainty, what sense 
the context requires that a w^ord should have, 
especially when the immediate subject is briefly 
stated. But this care is as easily practised as 
any other rule is. which hermeneutics prescribes 
in different cases. Violence must not be done 
ro words, by forcibly subjecting them to the con- 
text, against etymology, analog}^, the rules of 
grammar, and the nature of language. But in 
every thing short of this, all good lexicographers 
and commentators adapt the meaning of words 
to the context, in cases too numerous to need 
any specification. "'"'•' The remarks of the Profes- 
sor with special reference to the signification of 
particular words, are equall}^ applicable to the 
sense of words in combination. The examina- 
tion of the context is as important to the mean- 
ing of sentences as of words. The manner in 
which our Bibles are commonly printed is unfa- 
vorable to a proper examination of the context, 
fhe fracture of great coherent masses into sepa- 



* Ernesti : Eleraents of Intt?rpretation. 
lo 



194 GENERAL LAWS 

rate verses, is an unhappy arrangement in this 
respect, though attended with advantages for 
reference, which, however, could as well be se- 
cured by placing the figures in the margin as is 
done in some editions. The reader's attention 
is diverted from the flow and current of thought 
and fixed on an isolated proposition. Thus the 
logical connexion is overlooked and revelation 
is apt to be treated as a vast collection of pro- 
verbial sayings or independent propositions. 
The following examples wnll illustrate what has 
beert said. The declaration of our Saviour, 
Matt. 22: 14. "Many are called but few are 
chosen,'' is supposed by many to refer to sove- 
reign election ; but the context shows that he i.^ 
only stating the fact that while all are invited to 
the Gospel feast, there are comparatively few^ 
admitted to the participation of it in conse- 
quence of neglect on their part to secure the 
necessary qualifications. Universal grace for 
the purpose of salvation is attempted to be 
proved from 1 Cor. 12 : 7 : '"' the manifestation 
of the Spirit is given to every man to profit 
w^ithal." But the whole argument shows that 
the Apostle is speaking of supernatural gifts of 
the Spirit, and is addressing Church members 
exclusively. In 1 Cor. 15 : 22, the Apostle says, 
" For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be 
made alive." From these words there has been 
deduced by some the doctrine of universal sal- 
vation, and by others the legal identity of the 
human race with our first parent and their spir- 
itual death in him. But the context shows that 
it was not the design of the Apostle in the pas- 
sage to teach either of these doctrines. He is 
proving the resurrection of our Lord as a dcni- 



OF INTERPRETATION. 195 

onstration of the resurrection of all men. Af- 
ter citing the testimony of witnesses to our 
Lord's resurrection, he proceeds to an argument 
distinct from that of testimony, in the gracious 
design of God in this matter. He says, '^ for 
since by men came death, by man also (accord- 
ing to the design of God) came the resurrection 
of the dead. For as in Adam," &c. That is as 
physical death. (not spiritual death as is shown by 
the antithesis) came by Adam and was the con- 
sequence of his sin, so the physical resurrection 
from the dead will come by Christ ; as in the 
providential arrangement of God man brought 
in death, so by the same arrangement man 
wo:dd bring in the resurrection. The passage 
then relates solely to the resurrection, and there 
is in it not the faintest. trace of universal salva- 
tion, nor of mankind's oneness with Adam. In 
James 5 : 14 the elders of the church are com- 
manded to anoint the sick and to pra}' over him, 
"and the prayer of faith shall save him.'' The 
Church of Rome founds on this one passage the 
doctrine of extreme unction, which they say is 
to save the soul of the dying. But from verses 
15, IG, it is plain that by " save" in this passage 
is meant "heal," so that, v/hatever the practice 
may have implied, it was to be observed, not 
with the view of saving the soul, but in the case 
of one already a Christian, with a view of restor- 
ing his health. 

The Canon applicable to this branch of our 
subject is, Every passage must he interpreted in har- 
mony ivith the context. In other words, No expla- 
nation must be admitted which is opposed, or 
unsuited to the context. We haye an instance 
of the direct violation of this canon, oa the part 



196 GENERAL LAWS 

Df the Church of Rome, in regard to Matt. 18:17. 
"Tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to 
hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heath- 
en man and a publican." This passage is inter- 
preted by the llomanists as referring to the in- 
fallible decisions of all doctrines by the (Roman) 
Catholic Church. But what says the Evangel- 
ist? By reading the passage carefully in its 
connexion, the obvious meaning w^ill be found 
to be this ; " if a man have done you an injury, 
first admonish him privately ; if that does not 
avail, tell the Church, — not the universal Church 
dispersed throughout the world, but the particu- 
lar church, to which you both belong. Through 
the whole of the context there is not one word 
said about disobeying the determination of the 
Catholic Church respecting a disputed doctrine. 
Where no connexion manifestly exists between 
what immediately precedes or follows, none of 
course should be sought. This observation ap- 
plies to the Proverbs of Solomon, and chiefly to 
the 18th and following chapters, which form the 
second part of the Book. This portion of Scrip- 
ture consists almost entirely of isolated proposi- 
tions connected by no principle of association. 
In reference to parenthetical clauses, also, our 
rule must be applied with caution. W'here the 
parenthesis is short, it creates no special difficul- 
ty, and can hardly be said to interrupt the flow 
of the argument; but when it is long, it some- 
times materially affects the continuity of the 
discourse, and occasions considerable difficulty. 
e. g. Eph. 3: 2-14. The connexion is also some- 
times interrupted by the introduction of a covert 
. dialogue, in which objections, responses, and re- 
plies are not distinctly marked. 



OF INTERPRETATION. 197 

The Scope. — It sometimes happens, however, 
that the context fails to remove all doubt as to 
the exact meaning of the writer. Recourse, in 
that case, should be had to the scoj)c, or design 
of the writer, either in regard to the entire book,' 
or some large section in which the passage oc- 
curs. Every intelli^gent author proposes to hinv 
self some definite object or objects which he 
seeks by his writings to attain ; and not only- 
may it be presumed that he will say nothing in- 
consistent with that design, but also that what 
he does say will coincide and harmonize with it. 
The scope, therefore, is the soul — the vis vitcc — 
of a work, v,-hich lives and breathes through the 
whole, giving order, force, consistency and beau- 
ty to every part. As an illustration of the im- 
portance of regarding the scope of a writer, take 
the passage in James 2: 14, where the Apostle 
says, '^ Ye see how that by works a man is justi- 
fied, and not by faith only." St. James here ap- 
pears to express a sentiment at variance with 
the declaration of St. Paul, when he says that 
"a man is justified by faith only." Luther, to 
whom the doctrine of justification by faith only, 
or gratuitous justification, was most precious, as 
being, in his estimation, the crowning excellence 
of the Gospel, perceiving no way of reconciling 
the statements of the two xApostles with each 
other, rashly pronounced the letter of James an 
epistle of straw, and refused to acknowledge its 
inspired authority. The Romish Council of 
Trent, on the contrary, relying exclusively on 
the passage in James, enacted the following de 
cree and anathema, in opposition to the Protest 
ant doctrine. " Whosoever shall afhrm that the 
good works of a justified man are, in such senspv 



198 GENERAL LAWS 

the gifts of God, that they are not his worthy 
merits, and that he really does not deserve in- . 
crease of grace and eternal life, -let him be ac- 
cursed." Had the Romanists, on the one hand, 
and Luther on the other, directed their atten- 
tion to the respective designs of the two Apos- 
tles, and the scope of their epistles, both would 
probably have come to a different and harmo- 
nious decision. St. James' object was to warn 
converted Jews of the danger of relying on the 
mere profession of faith. He would have them 
understand directly, that obedience must ac- 
company the Christian faith ; and that a man 
who was satisfied with merely saying he be* 
lieved, to the neglect of holy living, was like a 
body without a vital spirit. An inoperative faith 
is a dead faith, and without avail. Tt must be a 
living principle in the soul, or it is nothing. In 
all this St. James has no reference to the ques- 
tion on what ground is a man justified (i. e. par- 
doned and accepted) in the sight of God? It 
was St. Paul's object to answer that question. 
St. Jpaiies had another point, wholly distinct, 
before his mind. He intended to enforce prac- 
tical piety, and maintained, not, in opposition 
to St. Paul, that men are not pardoned by faith, 
but that an alleged faith, unaccompanied and 
unevidenced by obedience, was no faith at all. 
In this sense the declaration of St. James is to 
be understood ; and so interpreted, it does not 
contradict, but confirms the doctrine of St. Paul. 
The scope of a writing may be ascertained by 
examining into the particular occasion and cir- 
cumstances^ which led to its composition, and the 
class of persojis addressed or had specially in 
view. Sometimes.it may be learned from the 



OF INTERPRETATION. 109 

wprcss meniion or cleca- intimation of the|\vriter or 
speaker himself. See John 20 : 31. Lu. 1: 1-4. 
2 Pet. 3 : 1. 1 Jo. 2 : 14. Prov. 1 : 1-4. In several 
of our Lord's Parables we find their design ex- 
pressly announced, so that there could be no 
mistake as to their particular application. See 
Lu. 12: 15. 18: 1. With respect to the scope, 
two canons are to be observed : — 

1. Xo argument from scope is allowable^ ivhcji the 
.scope is not ascertained u'ith certaintt/. Writers fre- 
quently make a scope to suit their own purpose. 
When the design of the writer or speaker is 
known with certainty, too much stress cannot 
be laid upon it in interpretation. 

2. In the argument from scope, the alleged scope 
. must necessarily demands, tlie alleged interpretation. It 

is not sufficient that the interpretation should 
harmonize with the scope, and that it should 
serve to promote it. For it might do both 
without being the true interpretation. That 
which is in opposition to the scope, cannot, in- 
deed, be the true meaning, but a false meaning 
may be in harmony with the scope. All parts 
of a discourse have not invariably a strict con- 
nexion with its general scope ; many things being 
often introduced w^hich are merely ohiter dicta. 
These are to be interpreted not by the general 
scope of the discourse, but agreeably to the sub- 
ject treated of, in the place where they occur. 

Next to the context and scope, the most im- 
portant aid in the investigation of the usage of 
words and the meaning of sentences, is the com- 
parison of similar or parallel passages. By these 
are meant passages, w^hether occurring in the 
writings of the same author, or of different 
authors, which contain substantially the same 



200 GENERAL LAWS 

idea, expressed either in the same or equivalent 
terms. Where the same words occur, whether 
in the same or a different sense, the parallelism 
is said to be verbal ; and where the same idea is 
expressed, though the w^ords may be different, 
the parallelism is real There is therefore a par- 
allelism of icords^ and a parallelism oi ideas : or of 
both words and ideas. The comparison of pas- 
sages, between w^hich the similarity is only ver- 
bal, is highly important for ascertaining the 
usage of the language. For this purpose the 
student should make diligent use of such works 
as The Englishman's Plebrew Concordance, and 
Greek Concordance; Robinson's Greek Lexicon- 
of the New Testament, and his Translation of 
Gesenius' Plebrew Lexicon. When the same 
words, however, are used in a different sense, or 
in relation to a different subject, the passages 
are not really parallel and throw no light upon 
each other. It is only the parallelism of ideas 
that is of much importance to the interpreter, 
and those passages only are' to be placed in jux- 
taposition either for exposition or illustration, 
which relate to the same subject, and convey 
substantially the same sentiment. It is in refer- 
ence to such passages that the Canon applies : 
Com.j)are Scriptv.re with Scripture; '' spiritual things 
with spiritual." It is by the observance of this 
comprehensive rule alone that we become sure 
of the true meaning of particular passages. In 
the examination of parallel passages a certain 
order should be observed. We should seek for 
parallels 1. in the waitings of the same author. 
2. in the compositions of other sacred writers. 

1. Every correct writer is accustomed to use 
the words he employs in one and the same 



OF INTERPRETATION. 201 

sense, when treating of the same subject. That 
sense may be peculiar to himself: hence vre find 
that Paul, Peter and John use the same words 
in a different sense from each other, as well as 
adopt a different style of expression. We have 
a striking instance of this, as it regards St. John, 
in the use of l >^oycs, the Word, as denoting the 
Godman Christ Jesus. (Gomp. Jo. 1: 1. 14. 1 
Jo. 1: 1. Rev. 19: 13.) Consequently a difficult 
passage of an evangelist or apostle is best ex- 
plained by a comparison of parallel passages in 
his oicn writing. The style of a writer in treat- 
ing of the same subject will at one time be more 
concise and obscure, at another, more diffuse 
and clear : and as consequently both easy and 
difficult passages may be expected to occur in 
his writings, when treating of the same subject, 
so it is a dictate of sound reason to explain the 
obscure and doubtful passages by the clear and 
unequivocal, the difficult by the easy, and to 
employ the more diffuse in eliciting the sense of 
the briefer propositions, e. g. In Heb. 1: 3. the 
phrase " by himself" is an elliptical form of ex- 
pression, and the meaning is uncertain. But if 
we compare it with Heb. 9: 2G. where the full 
form occurs, '' by the sacrifice of himself," the 
meaning is made plain. Some expositors assert 
that the phrase '"all things'' (ra ?ravr«) in Col. 
1: 16, signifies the ncic moral creation. But in t 
Cor. 8: 6. the same phrase is employed in the 
sense of all created tldngs. — the material world — 
and the act of creation in this sense is ascribed 
to the Father and the Son. The doctrine of 
justification by faith, or gratuitous justification, 
is discussed by St. Paul, both in his Epistle to 
the Romans, and in that to the Galatians ; but 



202 GENERAL LAWS 

it is elaborated more ful^y in the former than 
in the latter. They should be studied, there- 
fore, in connexion. There is great similarity 
between the Epistle to the Ephesians and that 
to the Colossians in regard both to the words, 
style and sentiment. Hence they shed mutual 
light on each other, and should be studied con- 
currently. 

2. But we may go beyond the compositions of 
the same v^riter, and refer to parallels in any 
part of Scripture. It is manifestly proper, how- 
ever, that the works of contemporary writers 
should be consulted before those of others. In 
the Old Testament this mode of conducting par- 
allel investigation is particularly important, be- 
cause the nature of the Hebrew language varied 
remarkably at different periods. The later He- 
brew of Kings and Chronicles is very different 
from the earlier of the Pentateuch. But the 
component parts of the New Testament Canon 
were written almost contemporaneously. Again : 
it is obviously the dictate of common sense, that 
writings of the same general character should 
be brought together for mutual illustration 
rather than such as belong to different classes of 
composition. Plence prophetical passages should 
be compared with prophetic, historical with his- 
torical, and poetical with poetical. The Books 
of Kings and Chronicles should be read in con- 
nexion, because they relate to the same periods 
of Jewish history, and reflect mutual light on 
each other. In like manner, and for the same 
reason also, should the Gospels be read, particu- 
larly the first three, or synoptical Gospels, as 
they are termed. 

The poetical compositions of the Hebrews are 



OF INTERPRETATION. 203 

characterized by another kind of parallelism, 
called the parallelism of members, which is de- 
serving of special attention. Each verse or short 
period usually consists of tvvo members, between 
which there exists a certain relation of thought, 
by virtue of which one corresponds with the 
other, so as to produce a beautiful proportion. 
This peculiarity runs throu.<^hout the books of 
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and most of 
the Prophets. Sometimes the parallelism is sy- 
nonymous or gradational^ giving precisely the same 
thought, or the same thought with some exten- 
sion. SomxCtimes the parallelism is antithetic; 
containing opposite terms, and notunfrequently 
opposite sentiments. The Book of Proverbs 
abounds in antithetic parallelism. This pecu- 
liarity of Hebrew poetry is occasionally to be 
met with in the Xew Testament, and penetrates 
even the prosaic compositions of the evangelical 
writers. The late Bishop of Limerick (Dr. Jebb) 
has given some happy illustrations of this in his 
Sacred Literature. In regard to parallelisms of 
this class, the principal idea which lies at the 
ground of both parts of the distich should be 
first ascertained; and then the several parts or 
members should be subjected to a minute exam- 
ination. 

The foundation of the parallelisms occurring 
in the sacred writings is the perpetual harmony 
of Scripture itself, which, though composed by 
various writers and in different ages, yet pro- 
ceeding from one and the same infallible source, 
cannot but agree in the sentiments it expresses. 
This is called the analogy (similarity) of Scripture^ 
and upon this is based its self-interpreting 
power. 



204 GENERAL LAV/S 

The principle of illustrating an author by com- 
paring him with himself, or with other authors, 
who write on the same subject, or were formed 
in the same school, seems so natural and so ob- 
viously just, that even Eom^an Catholics have 
not refused a qualified admission of it Thus 
Father Lami, an enlightened but zealous disci- 
ple of the Eomish Communion, in his Apparatus 
Biblicus, where he is delivering rules for inter- 
preting Scripture, writes as follows : '• When the 
same thing is expressed obscurely in one place 
and clearly in another, that which is clear must 
serve as a rule by which to explain that which 
is obscure, and the light in one passage must be 
employed to dispel the darkness of another."' 
But this rule is laid down in connexion with 
another in v^hich is enjoined a strict adherence 
to the interpretation of the Church, whatever 
that interpretation may be. Thus the analogy 
of Scripture is admitted as a principle of inter- 
pretation but in subordination to the dogmatic 
lavr, that, "it belongs to the Church, to judge of 
the true sense and interpretation of Scripture." 

The following directions are important to be 
observed in the comparison of parallel passages, 
whether historical, doctrinal, or ethical : 

1. The interpreter should satisfy himself that 
the passages which he brings into comparison; 
are rcoJ^ and not merely verbal^ parallelisms. In 
many instances this cannot be done without 
consulting the Scripture in the original, because 
in our standard version different Hebrew or 
Greek words are often translated by the same 
English word, and as frequently the same Hebrew 
or Greek words are represented by different Eng- 
ligh words. 



ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE. 205 

2. A passage which is more concise should be 
explained by one which is more full and partic- 
ular, and consequently less open to doubt and 
dispute from ambiguity. The maxim applies 
here in its full extent. '' Faucioi-a cxponl debent 
per plura.'' e. g. Lu. 6: 20. ''Blessed are ye poor." 
This passage should be interpreted by the aid of 
Matt. 5: 2. "Blessed are the poor in Spirit." The 
explanatory adjunct *' in ^Spirit," shows very 
clearly who are meant by •' the poor." Ma. 10: 
11 and Lu. 16: IS should be explained by Matt. 
'): 32. where we find the exception " fornication" 
introduced as a just ground for divorce ; which 
is omitted bv the other two Evangelists. Comp. 
also Lu. 12: 20. with Matt. 12: 32. 



CIIAPTEK XVIII. 

ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE — ANALOGY OF FAITH. 

The Harmony of different passages of Scrip- 
ture, relating to the same subject, which form 
the subject of the preceding chapter, belongs to 
what is denominated the Analogy of Scripture. 
This principle of analogy is based on the Inspi- 
ration of the sacred writers, and is a logical se- 
quence from the position, that the entire vol- 
ume of revciiled truth is substantially the ema- 
nation of one infallible mind. This Analogy is 
consistent with apparent discrepancies, but in- 
compatible with the admission of real contradic- 
tions, in the sacred volume. The old Protest- 
ant canons on this subject were. Scrlptiwa sua in- 



20G ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE. 

terpres. "Scripture its own interpreter," and Non 
■nisi ex Scriptura Scripturam potes interp)retari. "You 
cannot interpret Scripture except from Scrip- 
ture " A portion of the Rationalistic school of 
interpreters, however, rejecting the inspiration 
of Scripture, have recently substituted for the 
principle in question, the following rule : Inter 
pret Scripture frora itself: by which they mean, 
that each passage is to be explained apart from, 
and independently of, any connexion with oth- 
er portions of a different age or writer Accord- 
ing to this rule, the Biblical student has sim.ply 
to make himself familiar with that part of Scrip- 
ture which he attempts to explain, regardless of 
other passages relating to the same subject to be 
found in other portions of the sacred volume. 
He may put upon it such a construction as he 
thinks it will bear, without troubling himself to 
inqure whether that meaning agrees or disa- 
grees with the clearly ascertained sense of other 
passages. 

The principle of Scriptural analogy admits of 
a much more extensive application, and a much 
wider scope, than parallel passages. It embra- 
ces the entire scheme of revealed religion and 
the general tenor of Scripture in regard to all 
material facts, doctrines and precepts. In this 
wider application it is usually denominated the 
analogy of faith, ov oi Scripture doctrine. The 
Bible contains but one and the same religion 
throughout, though existing under different and 
successive dispensations. Hence there must ex- 
ist a correspondence and harmony between its 
several doctrinal statements and the general 
scheme of revelation, so that one class of texts 
relating to a particular doctrine or moral duty^ 



ANALOGY OF FAITH. 207 

cannot conflict with the true sense of another 
class, rehiting to kindred doctrines in the scheme 
of religion, by which the truth of those doctrines 
is established to the satisfaction of the inter- 
preter. 

Illustrations. — No truth is asserted more fre- 
quently in the Bible, and consequently none is - 
more certain in religion, than that God is good, 
not only to some individuals, but also towards 
all men. See Ps. 145: a Ez. IS: 23. Frequent- 
1}^ in the Old Testam nt, as well as in the New, 
docs the Almighty declare how earnestly he de- 
sires the sinner's return to him. See, among 
other passages, Deut. 5 : 29. Ez. 18 : 32 and 33. 
11. Matt. 23: 37. John 3: 16. 1 Tim. 2 : 4. Titus 
2: 11. 2 Pet. 3: 9. If, therefore, any passages 
occur, which at first sight appear to contradict 
the benevolence of God, in such case, the clear 
and certain doctrine relative to the divine goo i- 
ness is not to be impugned, m.uch less set aside 
by these obscure places, which, on the contrary, 
ought to be illustrated by such passages as are 
more clear and indisputable. One such passage 
is alleged to exist in Prov. IG : 4. where, accord- 
ing to our authorized English version, we read, 
that '* the Lord hath ma'^e all things for him- 
self; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." 
This passage, thus translated, has been supposed 
by several eminent writers to refer to the pre- 
destination of the elect, and the reprobation of 
the wicked. Interpreted in this w^ay, it would 
seem to express a sentiment at variance with 
the general benevolence, as well as justice of 
God. But the ."sentiment which the passage 
contains, according to the common rendering, is 
simply this, that there is nothing in the world 



208 ANALOGY OF FAITH. 

which does not contribute to the glory of God, 
and promote the accomplishment of his adorable 
and gracious designs. A more correct transla- 
tion of the passage, however, and one which 
frees it of all appearance of contradiction, is this: 
*' Jehovah hath made everything for its end " 
(or purpose,) ^' yea, even the wicked for the day 
of evil.' i. e. Jehovah in the administration of 
his natural and moral government, has ordained 
an inseparable connexion between cause and 
effect, so that piety and uprightness will surely 
receive their appropriate reward : while punish- 
ment, sooner or later, will certainly follow the 
commission of unrepented sin. John 4: 24. 
'■ Grod is a Spirit." This locus classicus is explicit 
and indisputable in support of the doctrine of 
the Spirituality and immateriality of God ; and 
if there were no other passage in the Bible in 
%yhich the same truth is affirmed or implied, no 
one would be disposed to call it in question. It 
is a fundamental article of belief among all who 
admit the existence of a Supreme Being at all. 
Now the analogy of faith demands, that we in- 
terpret all those passages which seem to repre- 
sent God as material, as possessed, of a human 
form, human organs, human limbs^ and human 
passions, agreeably to this clearly revealed and 
universally admitted truth. The language, in 
such cases, is regarded very properly as figura- 
tive and analogical. 

The same remark applies to all those passages 
which appear to represent God as local or limi- 
ted in knowledge, in power, in righteousness. 
They must be explained consistently with those 
clear passages, in which he is set forth as om- 
niscient, omnipotent, holy and just. Again : in 



ANALOGY OF FAITH. 209 

the beginning of ^^t. John's Gospel, Jesus Christ 
is called God. The question arises, is the ap- 
pelative here used in its highest sense ? Or 
does it import merely one personally or official- 
ly exalted or venerable, (godlike): just as magis- 
trates and angels are sometimes called gods ? 
Unitarians maintain the latter opinion ; but to 
refute it, and remove all doubt as to the mean- 
ing of the Apostle, we collect all the passages 
which relate to Christ, and we find divine works 
and attributes ascribed to h'im, divine names 
given to him, and divine honors paid to him. 
The conclusion, therefore, to which the un- 
prejudiced mind involuntarily comes is this, 
that He who is said to have created the world, 
who sustains it, who is omniscient, possesses all 
power in heaven and on earth, must be the Su- 
preme God, and not merely godlike, and conse- 
quently that there need be no hesitation from 
the analogy of faith in understanding the term 
as here used in its highest sense. " And their 
works do follow them." Rev. 14: 13. This clause 
by itself will fairly bear the interpretation, that 
the good works of the pious dead follow them 
into eternity, as ihe ground of their acceptance 
and happiness there. But this interpretation is 
refuted b}" the analogy of faith. For we find 
that, not only is such a sentiment not avowed by 
any sacred writer, but it is directly opposed to 
the doctrine of salvation by the alone merits of 
Jesus Christ. We conclude, therefore, that it 
cannot be the real meaning of the words, inten- 
ded by the writer. The works of the righteous 
do, indeed, follow them into eternity, and un- 
dergo the scrutiny of omniscience there, as 
furnishing a test of their faith and fidelity ; but 

14 



210 ANALOGY OF FAITH. 

it is not for these good works, that they are 
saved. Salvation is the gift of God, conferred 
by grace through faith, and not the purchase or 
reward of good works. 

James 5: 20. ^' He who converteth the sinner 
from the error of his way, shall save a soul from 
death, and shall hide a multitude of sins " This 
text will bear two distinct constructions. 1. The 
soul saved and the multitude of sins covered, 
may refer to the person who reclaims his erring 
brother; or 2. The words may refer to the 
brothel reclaimed. Now if the appeal be made 
to the general system of revealed truth \o deter- 
mine which of these is correct, we shall find 
that the first is wholly at variance with it. We 
are saved by faith in Christ, not by act« of kir^d- 
ness done to an erring brother. Hence we con- 
clude the meaning of the passage to be, that he 
who reclaims a backslider is the instrument of 
saving that backslider s soul and procuring the 
pardon of his sins. 

Again : The kingdom of God is morcd ayid spirit- 
ual So the Saviour has most explicitly declared. 
" The kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
tion; neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or lo, there! 
for behold, the kingdom of God is within you " Lu. 
17: 20, 21. So also says St. Paul: ''The king- 
dom of God is not 'meat and drink, but right- 
eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
Bom. 14: 17. So said Jesus to Pilate: ''My 
kingdom is not of this world — my kingdom is 
not from hence." John 18: 46 These explicit 
declarations are in accordance with the whole 
tenor of the Bible. This truth lies on the face 
of all its requisitions, commands, and promises; 
and on the face of the qualifications demanded 



ANALOGY OF FAITH. 211 

of all who would belong to this kingdom. 
To enter it man must undergo a spiritual change. 
To remain faithful to his allegiance, he must 
combat and conquer his spiritual enemies. To 
attain its highest rewards, he must profess holi- 
ness and purity of heart. It is manifestly, there- 
fore, not a material kingdom ; it is not a politico- 
ecclesiastical kingdom. Itris internal, having 
its outward manifestations in the life. The 
reign of God is in and over the soul. It is so in 
this life; it is so in the life to come. Jt is so 
now, and it will continue to be so, till the end 
of- time, the analogy of Scripture doctrine, 
therefore, requires, that those passage^ w^hich 
seem to speak of Christ's visible reign upon 
earth at some future period, and of his estab- 
lishing a visible and politico-ecclesiastical king- 
dom on earth should be interpreted figuratively 
and spiritually, not literally. 

The analogy of faith requires that, when, after 
a full examination of Scripture, a doctrine is 
proved to entire satisfaction by the consent of 
passages, or by clear and explicit statements, no 
passage should be understood as contradicting 
this; and lurther, that when any passage is am- 
biguou? or susceptable of more than one inter- 
pretation, that meaning should be preferred, 
which is most accordant with the whole scheme 
of revealed religion and the general current of 
Scripture. 1 1 is in this way that philosophy inter- 
prets natural phenomena; when once a general 
law is established, particular facts are placed un- 
der it, and any appearance that seems contradic- 
tory is specially examined; and of two explana- 
tions of the apparent anomaly, that one is chosen 
which harmonizes best with the general laws. 



212 ANALOGY OF FAITH. 

If we would comprehend the sense in which 
God speaks to man, we must contemplate reve- 
lation, not in its fragments, but as a whole. We 
may not be able to frame a system from the 
Scriptures, which will be logically complete in 
all its parts. Links may be wanting in the 
chain, which we may be unable to supply. But 
the grand outline of Christian doctrine cannot 
be easily mistaken, where the heart is duly pre- 
pared to embrace the truth. The essential doc- 
trines and precepts of revealed religion are pre- 
sented so frequently on the pages of the sacred 
volume, that none truly desirous of knowing the 
will of God, can well fail to discover them. In 
regard to these the voice of Scripture is uniform, 
and this uniformity constitutes the analogy of 
faith, and becomes a law of interpretation of 
very frequent and extensive application. It is 
not necessary, that a doctrine, in order to come 
within the scope of this analogy, and be received 
with the utmost assurance, should be uncontro- 
verted; for almost every truth of God has been 
controverted. But it must be proved to the 
conviction of all who appeal to this analogy, be- 
fore the rule can be applied as a principle of in- 
terpretation. This analogy is a rule to the ex- 
-: positor himself. If others dispute what he be- 
lieves to be concurrently taught in the Word of 
God, and by the aid of which he rejects one 
meaning of a passage, and adopts another, the 
principle will be useful only to himself. But 
should they agree with him in acknowledging 
the inculcation of revelation, this analogy then 
becomes a rule not only to the individual him- 
self, but also to those who coincide with him in 
opinion. Neither systems of philosophy, or of 



ANALOGY OF FAITH. 213 

Divinity, nor the Creeds and Confessions of dif- 
ferent churches, constitute this rule of analogy, 
although nothing is more common than the 
substitution of such systems and Creeds for the 
Word of Life. The utility and even necessity of 
some formulary of faith, either written or un- 
written, to the maintenance of an outward ec- 
clesiastical organization, and to the promotion 
of Christian communion and fellowship, cannot 
be successfully controverted. Such a formulary, 
in order to accomplish the ends contemplated 
by it, and to accord \vith the genius and design 
of the Gospel, should evidently consist, like the 
Apostles' Creed, of a brief statement of the prin- 
cipal facts and essential doctrines of Revealed 
religion, expressed in simple and perspicuous 
language, and divested as much as possible of 
all metaphysical subtleties and distinctions, for- 
eign to the Bible. Creeds more or less sharp 
and circumstantial have existed in the Church 
throughout all its branches from the Apostles' 
age down to the present time. A few modern 
sects, it is true, claim that they have no creed 
except the Bible ; but the only difference in 
this respect between them and others is, that 
their creed is unwritten. At the same time, it 
must be remembered that human creeds are 
not a rule or standard of interpretation ; for if 
they were, the rule would vary with every ex- 
isting dogmatic formulary, and every system of 
theology, which the ingenuity of man has de- 
vised, and consequently would be worthless. 
*• Whatever is not read therein " (in the Bible) 
says the Protestant Episcopal Church in her Ar- 
ticles of Religion. ^' nor may be proved thereby, 



214 ANALOGY OF FAITH. 

is not to be required of anj'' man, that it should 
be believed as an article of faith." 

On the contrary, it is a dogmatic law in the 
system of hermeneutics, received by the Romish 
Church, that " there is in the Church of Christ 
(meaning the Church of Rome) a certain standard 
of interpretation distinct bothfro-Yn the Scripture itself^ 
and the private judgment of the reader; to which 
standard oil interpretation of Scripture must he con- 
formed^ This standard of interpretation thus 
extrinsic both to the Bible and to private or in- 
dividual judgment, is claimed to be " that body 
of doctrine of which the Apostolic teaching was 
composed." This apostolic teaching, independ- 
ent of Scripture and furnishing the rule for its 
interpretation, is alleged to be found in the wri- 
tings of the Christian fathers, \vhich have pre- 
served the traditions of the Church. This 
standard, we are told, has positively declared 
the^ meaning of some parts of Scripture, and in 
regard to such passages this meaning must be 
given to the sacred text. And as to the other 
parts of Scripture, which are not positively ex- 
plained by this standard, we must take care not 
to give to them any interpretation which would 
be opposed to it. According to the Romish 
Church, then, the analogy of faith is not the 
harmony of Scripture with itself, but the har- 
mony of Scripture with tradition, and the tradi- 
tional teaching of the fathers is made by this 
law the touchstone to which the word of God 
must be brought, and tried and explained. 

Thus. an arbitrary law, having no foundation 
or authority in reason, and recognized no where - 
else in the domain of Literature, is made to 
override and supersede to the broad extent of 



LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. 215 

its application, all acknowledged hermeneutical 
principles; and the whole science of interpreta- 
tion, by the powerful spell of this magic wand, 
is circumscribed within such narrow limits, as to 
bp practically useless. Holding such a law, is it 
suiprising that the Romish Priesthood should 
look with disfavor on the general circulation of 
the Scriptures, and positively forbid the reading 
of them by the people except in their own au- 
thorized translation and accompanied vi^ith notes 
and comments in support of the dogmas of their 
Church. 



CHAPTEH XIX. 
LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. 

CAXOX IT. 

The same icords ivhcn they stand in the same con- 
nexion^ are to be interpreted in one and the same 
sense. 

The object which an author in his discourse 
or writing has in view is to communicate his 
ideas to others by the aid of words. These^ 
however, would not express his thoughts intel- 
ligibly, if the same words when occurring in the 
same connexion, were used sometimes in one 
sense, and sometimes in another. He would be 
constantly liable to be misunderstood. Noth- 
ing can be more unreasonable and more likely 
to mislead than an arbitrary variation without 
notice in the meaning of important words in 
the same passage. This canon is not, however^ 



216 GENERAL LAWS 

of universal application. Sometimes the same 
word is designedly repeated in the closest con- 
nexion in a different sense even in serious dis- 
course. In such cases, however, which are not 
very numerous, the difference is generally ren- 
dered so obvious by circumstances, that there 
can be no reasonable doubt of the change of 
meaning. 

Illustrations. — Matt. 8 : 22. '^ Let the dead bury 
their dead." Here the word dead is used first 
in a figurative or moral sense, as in Rev 3 : 1. 
and then literally. Rom. 9:6. "They are not 
all Israel (i. e. Spiritual Israel) who are of Is- 
rael." (i e. the literal Israel.) 2 Cor. 5:21. 
^' He hath made him to be sin^ (i. e. a sin-oflfer- 
ing) for us who knew no sin, (i. e, who was con- 
scious of having never committed sin.) The 
figure employed in such cases is called antana- 
clasis. 

CANON v. 

Universal terms are often employed in a limited 
sense, as signifying only a very large amount in 
number or quantity. 

Illustrations. — Ex. 9:6. " All the cattle of 
Egypt died." The connexion in which this pas- 
sage occurs, shows that this clause refers to some 
of all kinds, rather than the absolute totality of the 
number spoken of ; for in subsequent parts of 
the same chapter, the cattle of the king and 
people of Egypt are mentioned in such a way as 
shows that a considerable part of the nation's 
property of this description still remained. 
Again : Ex. 9 : 25. " The hail smote every herb 
of the field, and brake every tree of the field.'' 
A few days after this, we find the devastation of 



OF INTERPRETATION. 217 

the locusts thus described : '* They did eat every 
herb of the field, and all the fruit of the trees, 
which the hail had left." Ex. 32 : 3. ''AH the 
people brake off the golden earrings which were 
in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron." 
That the phrase "all the people," here simply 
denotes a large number, and not the whole, or 
even a majority of the people, may be reasonably 
inferred from the circumstance, that the stroke 
of punitive justice, for this act of idolatry, fell 
only upon 3000 persons, while the totality of 
Hebrew men at that time capable of bearing 
arms, was 600,000. Matt. 3 : 5. '' There went 
out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the 
country about the Jordan." A large number 
only can here be intended. We find the phrase 
^* under heaven^' employed by the inspired writers 
to signify an extent of country large, indeed, 
but falling far short of a geographical universal- 
ity. Acts 2: 5. "There were dwelling at Jeru- 
salem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation 
under heaven'' With this passage is combined a 
geographical enumeration, which points out the 
extent of country intended by " every nation " 
— as being from Italy to Persia, and from Egypt 
to the Black Sea. (See also Col. 1 : 23.) Rom. 
11:26. "Then all Israel shall be saved." i.e. 
the greater part, and not every individual. Deut. 
28 : 63, 64. " Ye shall be plucked from off the 
land whither thou goest to possess it, and the 
Lord shall scatter thee among all people^ from 
one end of the earth even unto the other end 
of the earth." This is a poetic description of 
the dispersion of the Jewish people, as the pun- 
ishment of their apostacy from God, and their 
rejection of the Messiah : but no one can regard 



218 GENERAL LAWS 

the expression as denoting a proper geographi- 
cal universality. The expressions '' all lands " 
and " all nations " in 1 Chron, 14: 17. cannot be 
taken as reaching beyond the range of Syria, 
Armenia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Egypt. 
1 Kgs. 10: 24. "And all the earth sought the 
presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom." This 
must be supposed to refer merely to the resort 
of embassies and complimentary visits from 
sovereigns and States within such a distance of 
the metropolis of the Hebrew monarchy, as 
might have ajopeared immense in those times, 
but which was quite small as compared with the 
then inhabited parts of the earth. Our Saviour 
says of the Qu^en of Sheba, who v/as one of the 
principal of these visitant-s, and whose domin- 
ions were on the eastern side of the Eed Sea, 
only about 12 or 1400 miles south of Jerusalem, 
— that she " that came from the uttermost varts of 
the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon." The 
language employed in instances such as these 
is in fact a natural hyperbole belonging not 
to artificial rhetoric, but to the dialect of com- 
mon life."^" 

CANON YI. 

It is a coTirmon usage in Scripture to express a dis- 
jparity between two objects hy ci rejection of the less. 

Thus in Hos. 6 : 6. Jehovah says, " 1 desire 
mercy and not sacrifice," i. e. rather than sacri- 
fice. Both mercy and sacrifice are important, 
and both are therefore commended; yet the 
former is to be regarded as of superior excel- 
lence. Moral duties occupy a higher ground 

* See J. Pye Smith's Lectures on Geology. 



OF INTERPRETATION. 219 

than ritual observances. John 6: 27. "Labor 
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that 
which endureth unto everlasting life," by which 
our Lord doubtless meant that we should labor 
chiefly for the latter, and give it the preeminence 
in our thoughts and efforts. St. Paul declares 
(1 Cor. 1: 17) that Christ Lad sent him notio 
baptize, but to preach the Gospel, i. e. the 
preaching of the Gospel w^ai to be his main bu- 
siness, and baptizing, though important, was to 
occupy a subordinate place. Eph. : 12. " We 
wrestle not against flesh and blood;'* i.e. our 
struggle is not only, or not chiefly, against hu- 
man beings, but against superhuman adversa- 
ries. In Ex. 16: 2. it is said that "the whole 
congregation murmured against Moses and 
Aaron ;" while in ver. 8. it is said " your mur- 
murings are not against us, but against the Lord." 
The criminality of the people in murmuring 
against God was so flagrant, as to make their of- 
fence against their human superiors unworthy 
of notice. Acts 5 : 4. "Thou hast not lied unto 
men, but unto God," i. e. not so much unto 
men as unto God. 

CANOX VII. 

The natural and obvious meaning of a passage or 
'sentence is usually the true meaning. 

A man of sense will speak or write in order to 
be understood, unless he has a particular object 
to gain by employing ambiguous terms and ex- 
pressions. It is, therefore, to be presumed that 
he will express himself by the use of well-chosen 
and appropriate words, as clearly and intelligi- 
bly as possible. Hence the more easy and natu- 
ral interpretation — that which lies plainly on 



220 GENERAL LAWS 

the surface, and which would ordinarily first 
occur to the mind of the hearer or reader as the 
meaning, should be preferred to one which is 
difficult and less obvious. . This law does not 
imply, of course, that every word in the sentence 
or proposition^ should be employed in its pri- 
mary or literal sense: for the figurative meaning 
of a word may be just as plain and intelligible 
to the most common apprehension as the literal 
meaning. But it has reference to the entire 
thought contained in the passage. This canon, 
however, has several exceptions and limitations. 
1. When the literal or apparent meaning asserts 
that which involves a known impossibility, or a 
strong improbability, it must be given up. 

Illustration. — Ps. 58 : . 3. " The wicked are 
estranged from the womb; they go astray, as 
soon as they are born, speaking lies." 

The meaning of the letter here is, that the 
wicked sin from the moment in which they are 
born ; and that from the same moment, they 
both walk, and speak lies, which is a natural 
impossibility. Ps. 51: 5. " Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity ; and in sin did my mother conceive 
me.'' Interpreted strictly according to its liter- 
al and apparent meaning, this passage would 
impeach the chastity of David's mother — a sup- 
position unwarranted by history and having no 
' probability in its favor. Such passages as these 
belong to the domain of rhetoric, and are to be 
interpreted by poetic license, as the strong lan- 
guage of hyperbole. They are not the material 
with which dogmatic theology should be con- 
structed. 

2. When the literal and apparent meaning 
contradicts any positive precept of Scripture, it 



OF INTERPRETATION. 221 

must be abandoned. The principle of seif-con- 
sistency attributed to the Bible forms the basis 
of this exception. 

Jllusirotion. — Eph. 4 : 20. '' Be ye angry, and 
sin not.'' This appears to be inconsistent with 
V. 31. in which all anger is forbidden. How 
then are we to reconcile the two passages ? Va- 
rious methods hnve been adopted to remove the 
apparent discrepancy. All agree that it is not 
a command to be angry. The whole tenor of 
Scripture forbids such a construction. Some 
render both clauses of the verse interrogatively: 
*'Are ye angry? and do ye not sin?'' But the 
context forbids such a construction. Others 
render only the first clause interrogatively : "Are 
ye angry? yet sin not." Others interpret the 
passage hypothetically : " If, or though, ye be 
angry, sin not." Others still, take the impera- 
tive in a permissive sense : " Be angrj^," (viz. 
when the occasion properly authorizes anger) : 
'* yet sin not." (viz. by yielding immoderately 
to the emotion, and thus cherishing a harsh and 
unchristian temper.) These interpreters allege 
that anger is not in itself necessarily sinful, and 
that it i'^ only causeless, (Matt. 6 : 22.) or excessive 
anger which is forbidden. The emotion de- 
scribed by the word " anger" {o^yy<) is complex, 
and consists in a sense of personal wrong, un- 
justly inflicted, and a feeling more or less in- 
tense towards the author of the supposed in- 
jury. 'The first is doubtless a feeling entirely 
proper : for it is involuntary and necessary to 
keep alive in our minds the distinction between 
right and wrong in human conduct. The sin- 
fulness of the other depends upon its degree 
and character. If it rises to the height of a de- 



222 GENERAL LAWS 

sire for revenge, it is a wrong feeling and ex- 
pressly forbidden. But if it terminates in mere 
displeasure, or just indignation, it is not sinful. 
Both feelings, or the two combined, are ex- 
pressed in Scripture by the term anger. Thus 
when our Saviour is said to have looked "round 
about" on the perverse Jews "with anger," 
nothing more is intended than that he was filled 
with virtuous indignation at their conduct. 
(Ma. 3:5.) It is in this sense also that ang.'r is 
attributed to God. But even when justifiable, 
the feeling is not to be cherished and p-^rpe ua- 
ted. "Let not the sun go down u})on your 
wmth." i. e. your anger must not only be mod- 
erate and entirely free from the spirit of re- 
venge, but it must be of short duratioii ; it must 
not be allowed to have any continued influence 
in the mind. 

3. The obvious meaning is not the true mean- 
ing, when there is an express limitation of it 
elsewhere affirmed. 

Illustration. — John 1:11,12. " He came unto 
his own, and his own received him not." VVe 
should infer from this passage taken by itseif, 
that not a solitary Jew believed in Christ. But 
the very next sentence contains the necessary 
limitation. " Bat as many as received him, t) 
them gave he power," &c. A very slight exam- 
ination of St. John's writings, whose style is the 
most simple and direct of all the Evangelists, 
will supply many more illustrations. Se ^ also 
Judg. 9: 5. Matt 26: 60. Jo. 1: 8. comp. with 
ch. 3:9. In 1 Chron. 23 : 13. it is said that the 
Ap^ronic priesthood is established forever. But 
from Jere. 31 : 31-34. and Heb. viii. and ix we 
learn that th-- coniinuance of the priesthood, 



OF INTERPRETATION. 223 

and indeed of the whole Levitical dispensation, 
is limited to the appointed time, when that dis- 
pensation should pass away and be succeeded 
by another more perfect and more enduring. 

4. When the apparent meaning is frigid, inept, 
forced or trifling, it cannot be the meaning in- 
tended. Such a meaning is to be rejected as 
unworthy of inspiration, and of the dignity and 
gravity of the subject. By inept is meant when 
a sf^ntiment is imputed to a writer, which is 
alike foreign both to his constant manner of 
thinking and speaking, and to his intention and 
object. That interpretation which does violence 
in any way to the true meaning of another's 
words, is called i\ forced interpretation. A forced 
interpretation is opf»osed to that which ih facile^ 
and differs h^oin false. An interpretation which 
is foreign to ihe ivords themselves^ or ungrammat- 
ical, is false, whereas an interpretation may be 
entirely grammatical and yet forced. That is a 
forced interpretation which is contrary to the or- 
dinary usage of the writer, or at variance with a 
due regard to the persons, times and places in 
and fur which he wrote, or incongruous to the 
series of the discourse. 

CAXON VIII. 

When any doctrine elsewhere clearly taught^ is 
omitted in ang passage^ that passage is to be interpreted 
in harmony with the doctrine omitted. 

The occasional omission of an important doc- 
. trine in the course of an argument, is easily ac- 
counted for by a well known principle of the 
mind. The legal maxim expresses it thus: " It 
is impossible to think of every thing, to foresee 
everything, to express every thing." The omis- 



224 GENERAL LAWS 

sion of a doctrine, where we should expect to 
find mention of it, is, therefore, no proof that 
the doctrine is ignored. 

Illustration. — Mark 16: 16. " He that believeth 
and is baptized, shall be saved." Here is an 
omission of repentance, as a condition of salva- 
tion. Matt. 28 : 19. '' Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them," &c. In this pas- 
sage there is no expressive mention either of re- 
pentance or faith as a pre-requisite to baptism. 

1 Tim. 2 : 5. "There is one God, and one me- 
diator between God and man, the man Christ 
Jesus." In this passage there is affirmed the 
unity of God and the mediatorship and human- 
ity of Christ. But to quote this passage to prove 
that Christ is simply a man, would be a viola- 
tion of our canon, because his divinity is else- 
where clearly and abundantly taught. The 
passage undoubtedly teaches the humanity of 
Christ; but it does not disprove his divinity. 
Just as in the sentence "man is mortal," there 
is an important truth omitted and the meaning 
of the sentence is to be determined in harmony 
with it. It does not disprove directly, or im- 
plied, the immortality of the soul. In Eph. 5 : 
23. it is said that " Christ is the Saviour of the 
body." Surely the apostle does not mean to as- 
sert that he merely saves the body, and leaves 
the soul to perish. 

CAXOX IX. 

Of two or more possible lyieanrngs of a passage^ that 
is to he preferred which exhibits the raostfull and fer- 
tile sense. 

The Holy Scriptures were appointed by God 
to enlighten and improve mankind in all ages 



OF INTERPRETATION. 'AZO 

and under ail circumstances. It is, therefore^ 
to be presumed that those books and passages^ 
in which weigh.ty reh'gious truths are propoun- 
ded, contain an important, rich, and comprehen- 
sive sense. It is not unfrequently the case tliat 
a passage of Scripture is grammatically suscep- 
tible of several meanings, all of which accord with 
the context and the analogy of Scripture; but 
one of them contains a fullness, {-rkr^^uois)^ rich- 
ness and fertility of sense, not possessed by 
the others, which render it more instructive, 
and admits of a vrider application than the oth- 
ers. This is to be preferred, because it answers 
best the end for which a revelation was given, 
and is, therefore, most likely to be the meaning 
intended by the inspired author. 

This Canon is not intended to afford the leasi 
sanction to the practice of putting a sense into a 
writer's words, which he cannot be supposed to 
have himself attached to them. A certain class 
of expositors are in the habit of pressing each 
word of the sacred text, until every idea, which 
by mere possibility it might etymologically con- 
tain, is forced out, and alledge as a reason for 
this violent and singular method of treating the 
inspired volume, that by this operation the preg- 
nant sense — 'pragnantes sensus Scripturae' — as 
they call it, and the holy emphasis of its ex- 
pressions can alone be received in all their full- 
ness. This method is pursued without the least 
regard to connexion, design, character of the 
writer, and coherence of hi? ideas. By this 
means they hope to make the sense of Scripture 
more edifying than it is likely to become by a 
mere grammatico-historical interpretation.. 

15 



226 GENERAL LAWS 

CANON X. 

The Old Testament should he interpreted in the 
light of the New. 

Much of the New Testament consists of expo- 
sition of the Old. The true intent and spirit of 
the latter are unfolded in the former. The dis- 
courses of our Saviour, and especially his sermon 
on the mount, are emphatically of this charac- 
ter. In these the falsity and carnality of the 
traditional interpretation are exposed, and the 
spiritual and comprehensive import of the Mo 
saic law are fully exhibited. It is true that the 
New Testament writers often quote the Old Tes- 
tament by accommodation for the purpose 
merely of illustrating their subject. But it 
should also be remembered that very frequently, 
when they quote or refer to Old Testament texts, 
they cite them as proofs : and not only so, but 
they authoritatively interpret and apply them, 
drawing out their proper and full meaning as 
developed in the latter revelation. From their 
interpretation and application of the Old Testa- 
ment there is no appeal; for the Divine inspira- 
tion of our Lord and his apostles, being received 
as an axiom in the science of Biblical hermeneu- 
tics — as a dogmatic law of interpretation, which 
must be constantly kept in mind ; it follows that 
their expositions of the Old Testament must be 
regarded as infallible. By this rule we learn the 
import and fulfillment of the Old Testam^ent 
prophecies respecting the Messiah, and the typ- 
ical character of the Jewish sacrifices and of 
many historical personages and events under 
the ancient dispensation. The principle in ques- 
tion, however, should be applied only to such 



OF INTERPRETATION. 227 

passages and events as are particularly referred 
to by the New Testament writers; and it pro- 
hibits U3 from interpreting a passage in the Old 
Testament in a different sense from that w^iich 
is declared by Christ or his apostles, to be the 
true meaning. We may refer to the 2d and 16th 
Psalms in illustration of our rule.- These Psalms 
are expressly declared by tiie New Testament 
writers to refer prophetically to Christ and the 
latter especially, both St. Peter and St. Paul af- 
firm to apply to him exclusively. Hengsten- 
berg. however, adopting the idealistic hypothe- 
sis, regards the 16th Psalm as generic and de- 
signedly descriptive of the whole class of pious 
sufferers ; thus setting aside altogether its proper 
Messianic and prophetic character. In this he 
•is followed by Dr. Alexander in his commentary 
on the Psalms. But with singular inconsisten- 
cy, the same learned commentator in his valua- 
ble work on the Acts of the Apostles, maintains 
on the authority of the two apostles already 
named, that the psalm is messianic, and that 
the express and argumentative denial by both 
of them, that the words can be applied to David, 
" excludes not only the typical, but, also the 
generic method of interpretation.' "^ 

CAN ox XI. 

The revelations of God in their dactrinal and per- 
ceptive parts, have been adapted to the age^ character ^ 
moral and intellectual development and circumstances 
of man ; in other loords^ they have been progressive. 

The race, like the individual, has its^period of 
infancy, of childhood, of youth, and of maturity; 

* See Alexander on Acts 2: 29, and 13: 35 37. 



228 • GENERAL LAWS 

and the light communicated must be adapted to 
each of these periods respectively. The former, 
as well as the latter, requires to be educated; 
and this education is carried on partly by the 
ordinary providence of God, and partly by his 
extraordinary and special interposition. In re- 
spect to the supernatural process, Jehovah, after 
the flood, selected a particular family to be the 
favored depositors of his revealed will. Xext a 
nation was chosen, — the descendants of that 
family : — and at last, the door of the Temple of 
Truth was thrown open to all mankind, and the 
Gospel was directed to be preached to all na- 
tions. The entire Bible, indeed, contains but 
one and the same doctrine, so far as respects the 
essential truths of revealed religion ; yet the 
communication and development of these truths 
and of the corresponding duties which they in- 
volve, were gradual and progressive; and not 
immerliately and at once complete The no- 
tions which were entertained by men at various 
periods, or, in other words, the subjective ideas 
of religion, were far from being uniform, and 
the exj^ression or exhibition of religious truths 
was necessarily proportioned to the more con- 
fined, or. subsequently to the more enlarged 
viev7s, the less refined or more rational knowl- 
edge which prevailed at separate periods, and 
among various successive generations of man- 
kind. The moral weakness of the Hebrews in 
the time of Moses, and the strength of their 
sensual affections, and evil propensities, render- 
ed it necessary to make some allowance to that 
people, and not to strain the divine law to too- 
high a pitch of moral perfection. Thus our Sa-- 
Tiour declares that it was on account of their 



OF IXTERPRETATIOX. 229 

"hardness of heartJ' that certain practices were 
permitted to continue among them, which are 
inconsistent with the higher law of Christianity. 
On this account polygamy, and concubinage, 
divorce on the most frivolous grounds, slavery, 
the avenging of blood, and several other things 
were not. entirely prohibited, but only had lim- 
its assigned to them. Nothing can be more evi- 
dent than that God has acted in his dealmgs 
with men on the principle of a iapting his re- 
quirements to the capacity of the human race, 
and of raising the standard of duty in propor- 
tion to the intellectual and moral advancement 
of mankind, and the progress of a true civiliza- 
tion, and that he has regarded good men and 
their acts in a dilierent manner under different 
degrees of light. Hence what has been tolera^ 
ted in one age, ceases to be so in another, and 
even comes to be regarded as criminal in a third. 
Both the ignorance of man and the hardness of 
his heart, are elements which seem to have en- 
tered into the calculations of the Supreme Intel- 
ligence, (if the expression may be permitted) 
whenever he has vouchsafed a revelation of his 
will. In thus educating mankind step by step, 
the Creator has advanced the standard of piety 
and virtue, as men have become more capable of 
understanding the principles on which they rest. 
And it is not easy to see how this could have been 
otherwise; unless the Deity had hastened the pro- 
gress of society by an overpowering and miracu- 
lous impulse. This, however, we know to be al- 
together alien from the general character of his 
providential government. The Mosaic institu- 
tions and laws were doubtless the best that 
could have exis^ted at the time they were pro- 



230 GENERAL LAY^^S 

mulgated, among a people, who were yet at so 
low a degree of civilization.^ And is a demon- 
strative proof of the divinitj^ and immutability 
of Christianity, that it lays down principles in 
religion and ethics adapted to the very highest 
state of moral culture to which man can attain 
in this world. In view of this great principle in 
the moral government of God, the interpreter 
in explaining the doctrines contained in the 
books of the Old Testam nt, should carefully 
guard against transferring to a former age the 
superior knowledge of subsequent periods — 
against obtruding upon ancient times and earlier 
dispensations that which only belongs to more 
recent times and to a later and more perfect 
dispensation. 

CANOX XII. 

The com lajuh of God addressed io one man^or one 
generation of men are binding on other men and other 
generations only so far as their respective circumstances 
and conditions are similar. 

This principle, which m^ore properly respects 
the application than the interpretation of Serip- 
ture, is doubtless liable to evasion and perver- 
sion; but its truth cannot well be denied, and it 
is acted upon constantly by the Christian world. 
^'So far," says Prof Stuart, "as our circumstances 
and relations are like those of the persons to 
whom the Scriptures were originally addressed, 
so far what was said to them, is binding upon us ; 
but no further." In consequence of the progres- 
sive character of Revelation, and its adaptation to 
the particular condition of man at certain peri- 
ods of his intellectual and moral growth, some 
laws which were once required to be rigidly ob- 



OF INTERPRETATIOX. 231 

served according to their literal exactness, have 
ceased to be. obligatory in their strict sense; but 
inasmuch as in their sj-^irit they were adapted to 
future periods and equally important and useful 
at all times, they are in that sense still in force; 
while other laws being intended only to be tem- 
porary, local, and confined to a particular dis- 
pensation, have passed away with that dispen- 
sation, and are no longer in force. It is so with 
human laws; and'hence the legal maxims, ^'Ma- 
nenie rationc manct ipsa Icx'^' and, '' cum cessat ratio 
legis^ cessat ipsa lex'' The letter of the injunction 
to hallow the Sabbath day, was in its utmost 
strictness, applicable only to the Jews; but the 
Supreme authority from Avhich it proceeded — 
the solemnit}^ with which it was inculcated — the 
position it occupies in the tables written by the 
finger of God — its admirable adaptation to the 
necessities of man both temporal and spiritual , 
in every age, — all these and various other con- 
siderations which might be mentioned, combine 
to make it certain that tliis was no transitory 
institution. The spirit of the ordinance, there- 
*fore, survives the Mosaic economy, although the 
mere letter of it may have been abolished It 
has lost nothing b}^ the destruction of the Jew- 
ish polity, except those incidental circumstan- 
ces, such as the precise day of the week, the pro- 
hibition to travel, etc., which have unavoidably 
dropped away from it in consequence of a 
change of dispensation, but which are not at all 
essential to the attainment of the ends contem- 
plated by the law. Other laws have ceased al- 
togv^ther to be operative and obligatory. Such 
is the case with the sacrificial rites, the Levitical 
institutions and the ceremonial ordinances of 



232 GENERAL LA\YS 

the Hebrew ritual. Though prescribed by Je- 
hovah, they have ivCcomplished their purpose, 
and are no longer in force. They received their 
fulfilment in Christ, and by that fulfilment in 
the great antitype, they 'were abrogated and 
passed away. 

CANON XIII. 

The iyiterpreter should endeavor to place himself in 
the identical situation and circwtfistances of the indi- 
vidual whose writings he interprets^ and of those to 
luhom they were irarnediately addressed. 

Every man hits some peculiarity, according to 
which his thoughts and the expression of them, 
are fashioned. It is a dictate of reason, that 
this peculiar characteristic, or individuality, of a 
writer, should be, as far as possible, studied and 
observed in interpretation. Accordingly, the 
expositor should endeavor to make himself ac- 
quainted with ciU those circumstances, which 
would have an influence in giving shape to this 
individuality; such as the authors country and 
origin; his education: the instruction whichi he. 
received in his youth in religious and secular 
knowledge; his customary vocation and habits 
of life; his natural temperament and previous 
history; his manners, opinions, and relations, so 
far as they can be discovered, and as they stand 
in connexion with some one or more passages of 
his writings. A knowledge of these particulars 
will often throw great light on an author's 
meaning, and render that luminous which oth- 
erwise would be obscure and uncertain. The 
occasion which gave rise to the composition of a 
writing, is often the cause of an author's writing 
just what and in the manner he does, and no 



OF INTERPRETATION. 233 

other, 'i'he time, place, aiid circumstances of a 
writer frequently determine his thoughts and 
sentiments, and influence the choice of his words 
and their combinations. Men are accustomed, 
moreover, to express themselves in various ways, 
according to the several states of mind in which 
they happen to be at the time of speaking or 
writing. The interpreter, therefore, should at- 
tentively consider the particular ^to^e; q/'?7i/A({/ in 
which words are spoken or written; whether in 
a calm and collected, or in an excited state. 
Hence the rule: a lur'iters language should he inter- 
preted in conformity iviih his known character^ previous 
history^ habits of thought^ opinions^ religion, situation, 
and circumstances ; and. no principle foreign to the 
views and habits of the writer should be allowed to ex- 
ert an influence on the interpretation of his writings^ 
whether philosophical or theological. 

Again : Every author writes immediately for 
his contemporaries, or at least for a certain class 
of them. He is consequently expected to make 
choice of words and phrases, to which the reader 
is likely to attach the same ideas as the writer. 
Accordingly the interpreter must pay particular 
attention to the usage of words v.^hich prevailed 
at the time, to the modes of thinking, the senti- 
ments, the manners and customs, of those for 
whom the writer composed his work. '' That," 
says Planck, 'may always be considered as the 
true sense of the writer to be explained, which 
either alone, or at least as the most natural sense, 
would be suggested by his expressions to the 
men, to whom, and for whom, he wrote." This 
remark, however, is not intended to authorize 
an interpreter to allow the spirit and mode of 
thinking of the age to modify or do away with 



234 GE^^ERAL LAWS 

the evident meaning of a passage; but merely 
to assist him in ascertainin^z what the meaning 
is. IlhAsiration : The New Testament was writ- 
ten by native Jews, principally for the immedi- 
ate benefit of Jewish converts to Christianity, 
who were acquainted only with the Greek lan- 
guage of com.mon life. Consequently we should 
expect them not onl3^ to employ the common 
dialect '(xc/v;? ^/a>.s«T5?), but to use particular 
words and phrases on religious subjects in a He- 
braic rather than -a classic Greek sense. Thus 
the phrase ''You will die in your sins," (John 
8: 24) would mean, according to the Greek idiom, 
You v;ill persevere to the end of life in sinning ; but 
according to the Hebrew, You ivill be condemned 
on account nf your sins. It cannot be doubted, 
therefore, that the latter is the true meaning. 
Again : No one would have thought that oaths 
were forbidden on every occasion Jin Matt. 5: 24. 
James 5 : 12, provivded h ' had sufficiently consid- 
ered to ivliom the interdiction was made, and the 
customs and opinions which were particularly 
reprobated. For the persons here specially re- 
ferred to, were probably those who at that time 
neither affirmed nor denied any thing, even on 
the most trifling occasions, without the addition 
of an oath, (Matt. 5: 37); and who thought that 
in an oath, in which they swore by heaven or 
by something else than God, even falsehood 
might be affirmed or truth denied, ivithout perjury, 
which they supposed could not be committed, 
unless by those who introduced the name of Je- 
hovah in their oaths. There is no reference 
whatever to judicial oaths, and there is no rea- 
son for supposing that a necessary oath tal'en reli- 
giously in the name of God is forbidden. 



OF INTERPRETATION. 235 

By carrying ourselves back into the age of the 
writer, and making ourselves familiar with the 
circumstances b}^ Vv'hich he was surrounded — the 
geography of the country, the history of the 
times, the customs, manners, and prevailing 
opinions of the people, and all the objects, natu- 
ral and artificial, which most usually engaged 
their attention — we shall be enabled to under- 
stand, limit and apply expressions, which other- 
wise might be unintelligible, or which, from the 
imperfection of human language, are too general 
and extensive to be taken in their literal sense. 
To this end, the most valuable assistance may 
be derived from the study of Biblical Archaeolo- 
gy, in which are collected into a focus all the 
most important fi\cts from travels in the East 
and other sources, which illustrate the Bible. 

It sometimes happens, however, that a speaker 
or writer propounds truths, which are either not 
understood at all, or very imperfectly appre 
hended by his hearers or first readers; or truths 
which are at variance with their educational 
prejudices. pre:onceiyed opinions and cherished 
sentiments. In that case, the sense of the au- 
thor must be carefully distinguished from that 
in which his hearers or readers understand him. 
In such instances, the sense does not necessarily 
consist in that meaning which the hearers or 
readers attach to the words, but it is that sense 
which the hearers or readers ought to attach to them. 
Nothing is more common in the ordinary inter- 
course of life than for one person to misunder- 
stand and misinterpret the meaning of another's 
language, even on trite and familiar subjects; 
and this, not simply in consequence of the in- 
trinsic ambiguity of human language, but from 



236 • GENERAL LAWS 

the influence of prejudice. The difficulty is often 
wholly subjective, and lies in the heart of the 
hearer. This was pre-eminently the case with 
the Jews in their conversation with our Saviour. 
He employed terms and phrases which were in 
common use, such as to be horn again, regeneration^ 
Jciiigdom of heaven j &c.; but he attached a deeper 
and more spiritual sense to them, than that to 
which his hearers were accustomed: hence they 
misunderstood or perverted his meaning. No- 
thing is more evident than that his hearers fre- 
quently misunderstood Christ. Thus, w^hen he 
spake of the lev en of the Pharisees and Saddu- 
ces, his disciples reasoned among themselves, 
saying, " It is because w^e have taken no bread." 
Matt. 16 : 6. We may sometimes choose for wise 
reasons to speak obscurely and ambiguously. 
Lu. 9: 44, 45. John 2: 19. In enunciating the 
doctrines of the new dispensation, our Saviour 
and his x\postles were necessitated to employ 
words and phrases in a new and different sense, 
though som.ewhat similar to. that which common 
use had assigned to them ; for they taught many 
truths which were new and unknown to their 
hearers, or which, though revealed in the Old 
Testament, were not understood at the time. 
The contemporaries of Christ, for instance, al- 
lotted to their ov/n nation exclusively, and per- 
haps to every individual in it, a place in Abra- 
ham's bosom. Yet Christ employs the Jewish 
phrase (Lu. 16: 22) to express the general idea 
of blessedness and enjoyment in company with 
Abraham ; but instead of annexing to it the false 
notions of the Jews, he attaches other views en- 
tirely opposed to theirs. He teaches them in 
express terms, that the posterity of Abraham 



OF INTERPKETATION. 237 

may be excluded from that happiness, and tliat 
strangers will be admitted to it. 

CANON XIV. 

The Interpreter r,iust endeavor to attain to a sympa- 
thy in thov.ght and feeling icith the sacred icrlters. 
ichose meaning he seeJcs to nnfold : or^ in other ivords. 
he must possess a kindred spirit ivlth the author luhofn 
he interprets. 

Such sympathy is not required for the inter- 
pretation of the inspired writings merely : it is 
equally necessary in respect to any author, an- 
cient or modern, and the possession of it to some 
extent must be regarded as altogether indispen- 
sible. But it is pre-eminently necessary in ref- 
erence to the sacred truths of revealed religion. 
Those who possess the state of heart enjoined in 
the word of God are most likely to succeed in its 
interpretation, because in their case, the mind is 
divested of prejudice and is in a kindred state to 
that of its author and the thing interpreted. It 
is on this principle that no man is competent to 
reproduce the life of Jesus, who is not in sym- 
pathy with the mind of Jesus. He may possess 
many and high qualifications for writing such 
a work, but" he lacks one which is indispensible. 
No man in the light of this principle, can fail 
to see that such men as Strauss and Renan were 
not the men to write the Life of the Saviour. 
It is plain, that no man can truly understand 
St. Paul or St. John, whose mind has not been 
brought in^o harmony with theirs: has not been 
elevated and purified by the same spirit, with 
which they were filled. This was doubtless what 
the pious Spener intended by his much disputed 



238 GENERAL LAWS 

assertion that none but the regenerated could 
understand Holy Scripture. 



CHAPTER XX. 

FIGURATIVE DIvSroURSE AND REPRESENTA- i 
TION. 

In rhetoric the ievm figure is employed in cjuite 
a general sense. It denotes not merely a mode 
of speech, in which, as in the trope or metaphor^ 
one or more words are changed from their liter- 
al and proper sense to one which is improper; 
but it is applied also, to a discourse, in which 
two thoughts or sentences, literally expressed, 
are placed in opposition to each other, in order 
to be more strikingly presented by contrast-, as 
in antithesis. 'Jlie term is further applied in its 
generic import to certain forms of literary com- 
position, and to certain objective representa- 
tions and significant actions, in which the idea 
of resemblance or analogy, either real or imagi- 
nary, intellectual, and arbitrar}^, is in some 
shape involved, and W'hich constitutes their dis- 
tinctive peculiarity. 

Under the general head of figurative discourse 
and representation, we shall arrange certain 
topics, not already discussed, w^hich appropri- 
ately belong to the science of Biblical hermen- 
eutics, and are entitled to the special attention 
of the Biblical student, 

I. The Comparison or Simile. — In every compari- 
son there are two elements, — a subject of dis- 
course and an object of comparison. These are 



OF INTERPRETATION. 239 

placed side by side and viewed separately ; the 
former being supposed to be but imperfectly 
known or understood, and needing illustration 
or ornament to make it more plain, or render it 
more vivid, attractive, and impressive; the latter 
being assumed to be well known, or easily un- 
derstood, and introduced for the purpose of 
lending its light and beauty to the former. The 
design of the simile (Gr. ccy.Qtajf/.(x,) is to suggest or 
trace the resemblance formally existing between 
the subject of discourse and the object with 
which it is compared ; and which are in them- 
selves dissimilar. To indicate the comparison 
the correlative signs as and so (Gr. xa^us and 
ouToj or ovru?) are employed ; the former being 
placed before the object of comparison, and the 
latter before the subject of discourse, e. g. " He 
was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and «.sa sheep 
before his shearers is dumb; so opened he not 
his mouth " Isa. 63 : 7. Sometimes the com- 
parison is indicated by the adjective like placed 
before the object of comparison, e.g. Alexan- 
der was like a lion It is characteristic of a com- 
parison, or simile, that every word is. to be taken 
in its proper sense, no word being turned out of 
its literal and usual signification. Thus in the 
example, " Alexander was like a lion," the sub- 
ject and attribute are both to be understood lit- 
erally ; and Alexander is compared to a lion in 
consequence of a supposed resemblance between 
him and that animal in respect to certain pecu- 
liarities. So in the passage, "He was led as a 
lamb/' tfcc.-T-the words lamb and sheep are to be 
taken in their proper and customary meaning, 
while the subject of discourse (the Messiah) 
is compared to these animals on account of a 



24:0 GENERAL LAWS 

resemblance in certain specified particulars, 
Sometimes tlie object of comparison only is ex- 
pressed, and the subject of discourse is inferred 
or left to be supplied by the reader; in which 
case, the correlative sinjns are also omitted. See^ 
Ma. 3 ; 23. Lu. 5 : 36. 

11. The Metaphor. — The Metaplior or irope^ (Gr. 
f/,srcc(pooci, from uircc<ps^eoy to transfer; and r^oroiy frorn^ 
«r^£TA>, to turyi,) is a figure of speech by which a 
word is transferred from the subject to which it 
properly belongs, and applied to another which 
has some similitude to its proper subject. This 
transferrence or substitution of some image for 
the thought which the image is designed to illus- 
trate, is grounded on i tacit con:iparison which 
the mind makes between the image and the 
thought illustraied by it; and hence the simile 
is easily converted into a metaphor, e. g. "Alex- 
ander was like a lion"; this is a simile. "Alex- 
ander w^as a lion"; this is a metaphor. Thus it 
appears that the metaphor differs from the simile 
in form only, and not in substance. In the simile 
the sulject and the object of comparison are 
kept distinct in the expression, as well as in the 
thought; in the metaphor the two are kept dis- 
tinct in the thought only, and not in the expres- 
sion, in which the two are blended. The meta- 
phor, howt ver, always asserts what is literally 
false; the comparison, on the contrary, asserts 
nothing but what is true. In the simile the pre- 
dicate or attributive is to be interpreted literally ; 
in the metaphor it is to be interpreted figura- 
tively and analogiccilly. Thus in the sentence, 
^' Alexander was a lion," the predicate noun lion 
cannot be taken in its natural and proper sig- 
nification, because in that case, the sense of the 



THE METAPHOR. 241 

proposition would be, that the monarch referred 
to was literally the animal called a lion. The 
word *' lion " as it stands in the metaphor is 
consequently transferred or turuf^d from it3 
p'oper meaning and made to designate a bravo 
ixu I courageous person ; — this animal b-^ing con- 
6])icuous for these qualities The simile is not 
the language of emotion, but suppose^ the mind 
of the writer or speaker to be in a cool and tian- 
quil state, and hf-nce it occurs in simple d^\<crip- 
tion, in plain narrative, and even in didactio 
discourse. But, if the mind is in an excited state, 
and the imagination is di>[)osed to be expur^ive, 
it Will naturalK' onjit the words indicating the 
resemblance, and lorcibly grasping the image, 
at once express itself in metaphor. The n»eta- 
phor is ba^ed either on a lesemblance of th'tugSy 
or a resemblance of refations We have an ex- 
ample of the former in »Iohn 1 : 29. *' Behold the 
Lamb of God uh'ch taketh away the sins of the 
World." Here the name of the object of com- 
parison is substi'nted for the subject oi discom^e, 
because the subject and object, in certain re- 
spects, res'-nible each other. Another instance 
occurs in Lu 13: 32 where our Loid calls herod 
a fox. Herod s character bore a K.-miblance to 
the dis[)osition of this curjning and crafty ani- 
mal ; and heiice the name of the one is substi- 
tuted for that of the otlier. As an exam[)le of 
the latter, take tiie declatation of Christ in Joha 
6: 35. ''I am the biead of life.' Iff re the met- 
aphorical expression rests on the mere resem- 
blance of relations, i e the relation wliich bread 
sustains to the nourishment and preservation 
of physical life, is like that which Christ sustains 
16 



242 THE FABLE. 

to the extension and growth of the spiritual 
life* 

III. The Fable or Apoh)gue — This is called by 
the Greeks Xoyosy arroXoyog, and aivaj, and by the 
Latins/«^w/a. Though belonging to the general 
cla?s of figurative composition, it differs entirely 
from the metaphor in that the figure <ioes not 
appertain to tlie woids or expre^^ion employed, 
but to the thought, Th^ fable is a brief story in- 
tended to inculcate some virtue, expose some 
vice, or administer some sage counsel and ad- 
vice. It is characterised by the iollowing par- 
ticulars: 1. Into the fable inferior animals are 
commonly introduced, and mad/? to act a con- 
spicuous part. 2 Circumstances highly improb- 
able, or even entirely inrpossible, are related. 
Iirational creatures and even inanimate nature, 
are repre.-ented as thinking, speaking, acting, 
and suffering, in a manner entiiely unsuited to 
their nature The qualities and acts of a higher 
class of beings, are frequently attributed to a 
lower. The lable rejects probability, and teaches 
through the laney ; it is consequently pure fic- 
tion, and claims to be nothing ^\i^Q. Cicero de- 
fines it to be "that in which things are contain- 
ed neither true nor probable.'' Not that the 
fabulist is regardless of truth; for it is neither 
\\\^ iriierdion to deceive, when he attributes hu- 
man language and actions to trees, birds, and 
beasts; nor is any one deceived by him. At the 
6ame time, the sev«-rer revert nee for truth which 
appertains to the higher moral teacher, will not 
allow him to indulge freely in this mode of 
sporting with histoiic truth, and this obvious 

* See Fuirbaiiic's HLTiiicueulics. 



THE MYTH. 243 

depart nre from the well known laws of nature. 
And this is doubtless the reason why we have 
no instance on record of the use of the fable by 
our vSaviour; and indeed only two clearly de- 
fined examples of this spec^'?s of composition 
are to be found in the sacred volume; viz. Judg. 
9 : 7. seq. and 2 Kirs 14 : 9. seq. 

3. The fable confines itself to earthly virtues, 
prudential maxims, or commendable human 
qualities. And as these have their representa- 
tives in certain classes of irrational Jtiiimals, 
these animals m«y be. and are, advantageously 
employed in the fable for imparting instruction. 
And if men are introduced in this species of 
composition, they always appear in a character 
cillied to the animal, and nat to the intellectual 
world. It is therefore essentially of the earth, 
and n^ver lifts itself above thf^ earth. 

4. The Mijth—The myih {Qy. fj^v^05)\?, a kind 
of fable or allegory, havinii truth tor its liasis, 
but which is wrapped up in the garb of fiction. 
It is a doctrine ex[>ves'jed in a narrative form — 
an abstract moral or spiritual truth, dramatized 
in action and personification ; — where the obj<^ot 
is to enforce faith, not in the histojical verily of 
the narrative, but in the doctiinal or moral 
truth, which, as is supposed, it is intended to 
convey. A myth is not a designed invention, 
not a mere figment of the imagination, but a 
popular religious conception,* applied, without 
Warrant of fact, to «ome [«articu'ar personage. 
Thus the Jews expected a Messiah possessed of 
certain attributes or qualities; the. disciples 
thought Je-us to be th^ Me>siah, and accoirlng- 
ly applied to liini all the .-upposed qualiti^^s of 
the expected Messiah. So say the mythologists. 



244 THE ALLEGORY. 

In mytholofry the course of the story is set be- 
fore us as the truth; and un* ducatfd and unre- 
flecting minds, in a less imaginative age, receive 
it as the truth. It is only the rtfl< ctive mind^ 
which penetrates to the distinction between the 
vehicle and the ti uth conveyed by it. The myth 
^'ould not have been not ct<l here, were it not 
that certain continental critics, followed by a 
few English imitators, hav>' recently alleged that 
the Penteteuch abounds in myths; and that the 
biographies of our Saviour, written by the evan- 
gel is t^, are in a greater or less degree mytholog- 
ical. 

1 V. Th e A Uegorif. — Th e A Hegory. (G r. aXXr.yo^ia, 
from aXX^f and ayooivM, to say one thiyig (xtid mean 
another,) is a figurative desciiption or represen- 
tation, in which one thing is expressed or repre- 
sented, and avoiJier is int< nded ; or a representa- 
tion of one thing, which is designed to excite the 
representation of arndher thing that in certain 
respects bears a restmhlance to it. Allegories 
not un frequently occur in the Scripture. 'J hey 
are mostly, however, of a mixed character; and 
consequently their intetideil ap{»lication is more 
easily disovrrrd, because* expressions are intro- 
duced which disclose the j>nncipal ol ject. 1 he 
description of ohi age in Eedes. xii is of this 
character. The boe>k of Canticles is regarded by 
the most reliable expositors as an extended aU 
legory, t>ut bfhtnging to the class of pure and 
unmixed allegories. In the New Testament, St, 
Paul s description of the Christian's armor, in his 
E|»istle to the Ephesians, is allegorical. Many 
of the Pioveibs of Sol< mon, and of tlie New 
Testament adages are of this nature. Allegory 
is not confined to verbal desoi iption ; a paintings 



THE ALLEGORY. 245 

a piecp of sculpture, or Pome arohitectiiral work 
may be allegorical. Mo«ier*s statue ofSilenee is 
allt^fjorioal. The ahstiaot i<lea of silenc*^ is first 
person ifie^l in the mind and then represented 
under the iniatff^ of a female fiiiure, P^'al's Court 
of Deat!) is an alle^oiical picture. Certain hu- 
man fitjures ar^ d^ lineated on the canvass to 
represent the [)ersonification of ahsli-act diseases. 

The alle^oiy has been freqinntly describecJ by 
eminent writers as an f^xteinbd metaphor; but 
there is a marked difference between the two. 
In an all<^gory there is an mnnediate representaiion 
called the '^r^orua-ti^ and an ultimate representaiion 
und^^rlyin^ tlje literal descriruion, and running 
parallel with it, called the wrohoa-ts, ]n a meta- 
phor likewise two things are piesenterl to view, 
but in a very different manner from the allego- 
ry. In the metaphor there is but one meaning; 
in the allegory there ?iye two. In the metaphor 
the principal subject is presented prominently 
to view; in the allegory it is coi.cealed, and 
needs to be searched out. The meaphor always 
asserts or imagines that one object is another. 
e. g. " Judah is a lion's whelp." The Allegory, 
on the contrary, never affirms tliat one thing ia 
anoth*^r; but the two are kept entirely distinct; 
and the more peifectly this distinction is pre* 
served, the more perfect is the allegory. If the 
subject of comparison is allowed occasionally to 
crop out. it becomes a mixed allegory, and, as a 
composition, is so far dt^feclive. 

Ajiain : in tropical expressions, the words taken 
in their proper and liteial sign^iication, aff'ord 
no sense, ov a false one. e g. " The shi* Id of 
faith,'' "'tlie armor of I'-ghteonsrH.^s." Bnt in 
au allegory, tlie words composing the immediate 



246 ALLEGOEICAL INTSRPIlETATiON- 

repie: c-i;i,!L.v/ti, are severally to be. taken in 
their customary mearjin<r, as literal or figurative, 
and interpreted according to their granimatico- 
historicTil sense; and so taken and interpreted, 
they afford a con^istent nxeanin^. But from 
the context, the occasion, the intimation or ex- 
press declaration of the writer or speaker, it ap- 
pears that he intended to convey another and 
deeper meaning. Every all gory, therefore^ 
must be suhjected to a twofold exarnination ; we 
must first examine ihe 2V/2»iy3<iic/^5 representation^ 
and then consider what olher representation it 
is intended to excite. The immediate represen- 
tation is of no further value, than as it leads to 
the w/^?*ma?e representation. But this is not the- 
case in the metaphor. Here there is but one 
representation, and no other is to be sought. 
Hence it appears that the interpretation of met- 
aphors always remains an interpretation of 
words; whereas the interpretation of allegories 
is an interpretation of things. Consequently a 
sequence of metaphors, or a metaphor prolonged, 
instead of being confined to a single woi d, never 
becomes an ajlegory, and is not subject to the 
same laws of interpretation. 

Allegorical LUerpretai'on-'—'^yhf^n we under- 
take to interpret a writing, we undertake as a 
general rule, to ascertain and unfold the sense, 
which the writer had in his own mind, and de- 
signed by the language he employs to communi- 
cate toother minds. This kind of interpretation, 
we have seen, when applied to the Bible, takes 
the name of historical interpretation. But there 
is a different method, which that collection of 
sacred books has been thought by many to de- 
mand, and which grto^ l,v t.hr. n^min nf allegorical 



ALLEaORrCAL INTERPRETATIOPT. 247 

intprpretntion. Thi^ phrfi^c rpqiiiros some expla- 
nation. It (Joes not me\n tho right inter|)reta- 
tion of allpgorie.^. 'I'o pxplnin an allegory prop- 
erly a-^ Kucli, aecwclin«r to the orijifiTial design of 
the writer, is to interpret it historically. Alle- 
gorical interpretation is no more the interpr ta- 
tion ofailegoriers, than the interpretation of any 
other fiiiure vvoukl prope«4y take its name from 
that fi>rure; no more, for iir^tance, than the ex- 
planation of a hyberbole could be properly call- 
ed A ypfr^ofoz/ interpretation, or tlie just exf)Osl- 
tion of a m«r^taphor, metaphorical interpretation. 
Neither is allegorical interpretation the use of the 
words of another, whether contjfiiiing narrative, 
doctrine, or somethinir els-e, for the f)Ui pose of il- 
lustrating in an allegorized or accommodated ap- 
plication, one's own idea. If, the better to convey 
my own thoughts, I choose to frame an allegory, I 
may either create a figment ot rny own, or I may 
have recourse to something which already exists. 
But in the latter case, I do not attribute an alle- 
gory to the writer whose words 1 employ; I simply 
adopt his words in order to construct an allegory 
of my own. This has been done hy St. Paul in his 
Epistle to the Galatians, (ch. 4: 22-26.) in refer- 
ence to the history of the two sons of Abraham, 
and hence he has been erroneously supposed to 
give his apostolic and in-pired sanction to the sys- 
tem of allegorical interpretation. In our English 
version, the Apostle is made to say "which things 
are an allegory." Now. since an allegory is a 
picture of ioiagination, or a fictitious narrative, 
it has been inferred that St. Paul in this passage 
has warranted by his own declaration and con- 
duct, the allegorical method of interpretation. 
Such, however, is not the ca.se. In the instance 



248 ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. 

referred to, 8t Paul does not employ the Greek 
noun signifying allegory, nor indeed does it oc* 
cur anywhere in the New Testament, nor even 
in the Septunj^int Gieek Version of the Old 
J'estament. He does not pronounce the history 
itself to which he refers an allegory; but simply 
declai-es that it was allegorh*id by him, for the 
purpose of illustration. Now, it is one thing to 
say that a histoi'y is allegorized for a particular 
j)nrpose. and quite another to say that it is iisdf 
an allegoiy. Allegorical interpretation, then, is 
neither of these two processes The expression 
is em[)loved in relation to two processes entirely 
distinct i'lom these. The term allegorical is ap- 
plicable to that interpretation which, without 
any demonstrable or assignable ground, and 
without wanant or authority from the context, 
or fiom significant marks of the plan, structure 
and coherence of the composition, assumes a 
represeiitation or description to be altogether 
figurative: and in consequence, entirely re- 
jects the literal and historical sense, and supposes 
another and impioper sense, foreign to the 
design of the writer. The term allegorical 
is also appropriately u^^ed in reference to that 
interpretation which arbitrarily assumes that 
a passage has a figurative in addition to its 
lit^eral and proper sense. In the one case the 
expositor wholly discards the obvious and prop- 
er sense, and converts history into allegory, con- 
trary to the original intention and true meaning 
of the wiiter., thus transferring the passage, or 
wovk, from the domain of history to that of fic- 
tion. In the Of her, he admits, indeed, the his- 
torical sen^e, but also attachv^s to the woi-ds 
auoiher meaning, according to his own fancy. 



THE PROVERB. 243 

♦ 
H^ puts more into the words of an author than 
they really contiin, by affixing; a mt/stical and 
mediate^ in ad<lition to the immediate and direct 
sen^e. He does not subsVtute one sense for 
another, but, ost<^nsibly for the purpose either of 
obviating objections, or of rendt-ring the Scrip- 
tures more ediiyinij, he supposes one sense in 
addition to another, where tliere is no valid 
ground for the assumption. It is in this sense 
that we employ thi^ jjhrase typical hiterpretnOoa, 
This does not import the proper explanation and 
elucidation of a r«'al type: but the assumption of a 
type where none was intended. Hence the terms 
allegorical^ typical, and mystical^ are employed a» 
synonymous, when used to represent that sys- 
tem of interpretation, which attach^^s a second- 
ary but hidden sense to the sacred Scriptures, 
foreign to the desiirn of the writers, and the in- 
tention of the Holy Spirit Tliis is the more 
comQion application of the plirase allegorical 
interpretation in the history of Biblical Herme- 
neutics. The metho<l of inteipretation in ques- 
tion originated with Pagan writers, fjom whom 
it was introduced into the Jewish schools, and 
the early Christian writers adopted it from them. 
The Proverb^ or Adrtge. — A Proverb is a sliorfc 
pithy sentence, which embodies a well known 
and admitted truth, or common fact, ascer- 
tained by expeiience or observation, and 
which passes current among tlie masses of 
society. Among -the Oreeks provprbs were 
Calhnl 'z-aoeii^iat (iVom ca^a neaTy and et(jt.o5, M'ly) 
-wayside idmnui, (= Tra^aha) because common, 
and adnpted to meet •iaiiv wants; and also for 
the pujpose of distiiiguishiniz them from the 
more logical and discriminating harangue of 



250 THE PrxOYERB. 

Schools pind philosophers. The Romans dpnomi^ 
nated them ado'jyia, hecaiue they wereadof/en- 
aum apia, praclical maxims fitted for quickly 
solving the problems ol:' dnily life. _ Br ^i?^/ ap- 
pears to be not only one of the constituent ele- 
ments, but a prime excellence of the proverb. 
This is indicated by the word itseW— p rover 6ia 
(t'rom pro and verl/um)for, or instead of worjds^-i ^. 
a few words. Proverbs may be divided into two 
distinct classes, viz. 'literal and figurative or alle- 
gnricai, 'Ihe former class comprises those which 
admit only of a literal inteij^r-etation, and are 
to be understood according to. the plain, obvious^ 
grammatical meaning of the terms in which 
they are expressed. The latter comprise those 
in which one thing is said and another meant. 
In the former case the literal sense exhausts the 
meaning; in the latter, it is of no further use 
than to suggest the applied mieaning. The fol- 
lowing are examples of the first class : " Honesty 
is the best policy," '' Right wrongs no man," etc. 
To the second class belong such proverbs as^ 
these: "Drink water from your own cistern/* 
*' Every one drawls the water to his own mill." 
^* There is many a slip between the cup and the 
lip." ''Strike while the iron is hot." ''Physician, 
heal thyself." "Those who live in glass houses 
should not throw stones." ^' The fathers have 
eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are 
set on edge." These and similar proverbs have 
a real sense quite distinct from their literal 
meaning, and this must be determined from the 
connexion in which they are employed, and the 
particular application which is made of them. 

There are many proverbs and adages scattered 
through the Old and New Testament; and the 



TllK niOVKllB. 251 

Book of Proverbs by iSolomon is a coUt^ction of 
tho-o which were composted by this llebrew 
monarch, and current, among the Hebrew peo- 
ple in Ills day. ' 'Rie foll<i\vi!ig yuh'S and obser- 
vations will assist the studt-iiL in the study and 
inttr))retatinn of Proverbs and pailiculaily of 
the Book of PiOverbs :— 

1. Proverbs are manifestly not intended to 
have only an ?Wa7V/?<rt.^ amplication. From their 
very nature they are dt-.-i^zned to apply to all 
castas where similarity of circumstances would 
render them appropriate. At the same time, 
with few excej>tions, the provej l)s of Solomon 
have n^>t an unlimited and ?/rii/Y^r5a^ application, 
but onlv that which is generaL e. g. cb. 10: 17. 
16: 7. 22: 6. 

2. Nothing more is frequently intended in the 
Book of Provei bs that what u.^ually occurs, and 
iiot what is good and proper in itself Invleeda 
proverbial maxim may, as a sentiment, be false, 
while a*= a matter of fact it may be strictly true, 
e.g. "Might makes right." "The end justifies 
the means." Upon such false principles a3 
these men are continually acting, and to their 
own minds, at least, justify, on the ground of 
them, oppression, slavery, and an endless variety 
of wicked acts. 

3. In thi* Proverbs of Solom^^n a thing is some- 
times represented as really done, in order to in- 
dicate what ovght to be done, although too often 
neglected, e. g. ch. IG: 12, 13. 

4. Some maxims in that book, which, taken 
in their broadeirt and most unqualified sense^ 
and without regard to the circumstances which 
gave rise to them, appear to be inconsistent with 
ih^ l:\w of fraternal kinflness, (e. g the warnings 



252 THE PARABLE. 

against purpt3^«h♦p.) aro- only ?ahitflry and im- 
prpspive admonitions against indiscreet and im- 
pindent actions. 

5 In the Ft ndy of the Book of Proverbs par- 
ticnlfir attention should he paid to the structure 
of 11 f brew poetry, especially to the laws of He- 
brew parallelism. 



CHAPTER XXL 

THE PARABLE. 

The Greek woid jra^ajS/j^r, from which our 
English word pniahle conips, is derived from the 
verb ^eceufiaXkvv ^Ta^cct nearto.nuci {^aXXuv, to casl^l 
wViich prnpei ly signifies io throiv veai\ to cast on$ 
thing before or beside ari'dher, to pJace side by side. 
Hence the connate noun '^rctoa^oXvi imports pri- 
marily a pfacing side by side, as of ships in battle^ 
a juxta position. Now, as this juxtaposition of 
two things may be for the purpose of comparing 
one v.^ith the other, a secondary meaning of the 
v<^rb is to eor/ip-rre, and of the noun, a comparison^ 
and as this comparison is commonly made for 
the purpose of sliowing the resemblance between 
the two, hence the signification similitude. 
Cicero defines the parable to be *'a form of speech 
in which we compare one thing with some other 
on account of a resemblance between the two." 
By the aid of etymology, therefore, we may form 
fome id fa of tl»e gtneiic character of Parables, 
but not of their .<?p<'j^^<?charaeter. We learn that 
they belong to the class of figui a tive composition, 
ba?>ed on resemblance, but we are left in oncer- 



THE PARABLE. 253 

tainty, whether they are simply metaphors, alle- 
gories, or eximples. And wli.^n whs cotne to in- 
quire into the us^ of the wor«l pir^ible in the 
Scriptures, we find ourselves still ni^re embir- 
ras:^ed, from the fact that the word is employed 
in a variety (if senses, and with much greater 
latitude of signification, than in classic usage. 
In the Greek version of the Old Testament, its 
answer in every instance to the Hebrew noua 
Sa^O, mashalj and as the same Hebraic usage, 
which obtains in the Septuanint. pervades the 
New Testament, in orde»r to d^»termine the pre- 
cise import of the word parabh* in the latter, we 
must have recourse to the II^»brHW Scriptures 
Now^ the Hebrew veib S;^^ mnshal^ signifies to 
liken^ to compare, and the primary meaning of the 
kindred noun I'^O 7/16/5 Aa/, is a CO //f/7«mo A?, a sim" 
ilUude. Thus far, the corresponding Hebrevr 
and Greek words coincide. But, beyond this, 
the Hebrew word takes a wider range. Am^ng 
its secondary m^^aning-, are an image, 3. figure, or 
word picturt% a /'a6/^, an apothegm, a proverb or 
adage, an obscure eniginafical expre.ssion, au allegory^ 
f> gnnne, or grave .sententious ^<\.\\r\^y figaratloQ 
discourse general ly, a propketic announcefnent, ex- 
pressed in figurative language, a!i<l finally, » 
pne/r^y because that species of composition abotind* 
in imaires, aiKl figurative langua;:e. Thus it ap- 
pears iliat the woi'd emhra^'es w;thin its com- 
prehensive scope almost every variety of figures 
and figurative discour^se, based on resemblance. 
The (rreek. word flr«^a/3#x»f, therefore, both in the 
Septuagint, and in me New Testament, like the 
U^brew corresponding word, is generic in its 
usage, aDd the specific meaning in any case 



254 THE PARABLE. 

must V>f> determined by the context and nature, 
of the composition. Overlooking this impoitant 
fact, Fome vvi'iters have classed metaphors, fables, 
and proverbs, among parables. Diunimond, 
especially, has evinced a singular lack of dl^crimk 
ination, by converting nearly all the metaphori- 
cal and proverbial expressions of our Lord, into 
parahles. He thus swells the number recorded 
to severity, whWe^ in point of fact, they do not 
n-iuch exceed thirty. Various -attempts have 
been made to iVame a definition of the Parable, 
which .'^hall be sufficiently compreliensive to cover 
the whole cround of our Lord's parabolic dis- 
courses. Were these parahles all ca«t in one 
mould, and did they all < xhibit one uniform as- 
pect, there would be no difficulty in constructing 
a perspicuous and satisfactory dt^tinitlon. But 
such is not the fact ; hence, when the Biblical 
student comes to apply the definitions with 
which he is provided, he finds them lacking in 
discrimination, or defective in comprehensive- 
ness. They furnish no adequate Ley to the so- 
lution of the parables as a whole, and conse- 
quently fail to render him that assistarjoe which 
lie had a light to expect fron^them; and iEst(^ad 
of aiding him wiieiv he most ne^ds aid, they 
embirass and perplex him, The Parabh-s of our 
Lord may be conveniently arranged under two 
classes, diii^^iing f*'om each other, both in their 
outward form and design. Of th^sQ, one class 
is peculiar to the New Testament, while the oth- 
er is common to saei-ed and profane literature. 
1. The fiist class compiises those which, in their 
outwaid form and constitution, are allegoiical. 
They are, in fact, sacred allegories, and, like all 
Other compositions of this kind, they have an 



THE PARABLE. 255 

obvious and apparent meaning, and an occult or 
bi'^den meaning, concealed under the outward 
and f'oraial description, a mat<^rial and imme- 
diate representation, and an ultimate represen- 
tation, running parallel with it The truth 
which underlies tiie allegorical parable, is histor- 
ical truth ; it might be the l;^istory of the past, the 
present, or the future; but in point of fact, it 
is generally the last; in other words it is pro- 
phetic history. With few exceptions, the parables 
of this class are expressly declared to be simili- 
tudes. The subj^^ct of comparison is announced 
at the opening of the parable by the formula, 
" the kingdom of heaven is like" so and so; 
which furnishes the key to its interpretation. 
In these parables, the immediate repiesenta- 
tion or similitude is of no further use than to 
serve as a suitable vehicle for tjie ultimate rep- 
resentation, which exhibits thermal sense intend- 
ed by the parable. 

Our Lord s immediate design in (he delivery 
of these allegorical pclrables, was, to comtnuni- 
cate information not already po>se.ssed, and yet 
infc;rmation of such a nature as, forsome reason, 
he did not at the time choose to communicate 
to the persons wham he addressed in a clear 
and distinct manner, but obscuiely, and dis- 
guised under the veil of imagery and allegory, 
which required explanation to be properly un- 
derstood. On rxaminalion, these parables will 
be found to relate in general to the 'Spiritual or 
Moral Kingdom, wdiich our Saviour wa^ about 
to establish in the world.— to the new dispensa- 
tion of grace which he was about to inaugurate*, 
— totiie outwArd and visible Chuich, wiiich he 
was about to fcun*^; or else to the growth and 



256 THE PARABLE. 

development of true religion in the indivirlual 
soul under that dispensation, and in that visible 
Church. Thfy are the vehicles, therefore, not 
of doctrines, but of facts; aisd consequently are 
pute histories, only not sini})ly and properly 
expressed. And as the facts ha<l, as yet, no real 
existence, but were still in the future, conse- 
quently tlie histoiy they describe, is prophetic 
history. Accordin<zly, th^se parables aie alle- 
gorical, historical, and prcphetica), or prophetico- 
histoiica).. 

From the very nature and stiucture of this 
class of our Lord's paiables.it is evident that 
they could not have been understood by hia 
auditors without explanation. It was not the 
expectation of our Saviour that they vwu/d be 
then understood, nor did it lall within the scope 
of his design, that they sh<'ul(i be then iully ap- 
prehended, else they would have bei n d flerent- 
)y expressed. For this there niay have been 
Feveiai reasons. The iacts desciibed in t}jem, 
liaving, as yet, no rrc//, but only a pr* pheiic ex 
islence, they m'ght be such as those who heai<l 
them were not at the time jiersonally interested 
in, or tln^re might have l^t en a ]>resent lepug- 
nance to the krr wl» (\^e of the hicts alludt d to^ 
and a present d fhculty in making th< m undi r- 
stoc»d and apprrciat< d by those wliose mindfi 
were envt lop< d in tlic mists of igi.oiance, and 
prejudice, asiegaids the tiue nature o1 Sjniitual 
leligion, and the giard puipose oi cui Lc^id's ad- 
vent and missicn '1 lise ciif I njf-tances would 
render it not only ofiensive and dangerous, but, 
perhaps, impracticable, usfless. and absuid, to 
communicate th^m in clear, pnd Fimf»le lan- 
guage to the mixed multitudes Tsho attended od 



TFIE PARABI.E. 20i 

bis.ministry. Accordingly, we do not find that 
any explanation waa asked by, or given to them 
at the time. Those to whom they were address- 
ed, v;ere left to decipher the meaning of these 
parables, if at all, by the gradual development 
of the events themselves, vrhich they predictlve- 
ly described But the immediate disciples of 
our Lord stood in a diiierent relation to them. 
To them the subject-matter of these prophetic 
parables was of the highest interest and im- 
portance; and consequently they embraced the 
earliest opportunity lo obtain a. private explana 
tion ofthem. (see Matt. 13; lU-12, IS. Mar. 4: 34.) 
After the Saviour had fully explained to them 
the parables of the Sower and the Tares, they 
seem to ha\e had less difhculty in undeistanding 
other parables of the same class. They were 
thereby furnislied with a key to the interpreta- 
tion of siniilar parables; and when afterwarvls 
he related the parables of the hidden treai-ure. 
the peail, and the drawn net, and then enquired 
of them, if thev understood them ; they leplied 
that they did. '(Matt. 13:54.) 

Now, it was to parables of this cl.'is.-, that our 
Lord evidently alluded, when, on being asked 
by his disciples why he spoke to tlic multitudes 
in parables, he replied, *' Because it is given unto 
you to know the mysteries (secrets) of the king- 
dom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For 
whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he 
shall have more abundance; but whosoever 
hath not, from him shall be taken away even 
that he hath. Therefore. 1 speak to them in 
parables : because they seeing, see not, and hear- 
ing, hear not. neither do they understand." (Matt. 
13:lUl3.) This remark of cur Lo^rd seems, at 
17 



258 THE PARABLE. 

first view, to be rei^ugnant to the very design of 
parables as commoniy understood, which is to 
illustrate a subject and make it plainer, not to 
involve it in obscurity. But, when it is under- 
stood to refer to the allegorical parables exclu- 
sively, its force and propriety are clearly per- 
ceived. 

2. The second class of our Lord's parables 
comprises such as consist of brief stories, tales 
or narratives, designed in the most attractive 
and impressive manner to illustrate and enforce 
some specific duty, or to inculcate some specific 
•doctrine. They are therefore in their scope and 
design doctrinal^ ethical and practical. They oc- 
cur in the midst of moral and doctrinal discour- 
ses, and often gave occasion to such discourses. 
Their object was to elucidate and to impress, — 
to simplify and to enforce. Accordingly their 
scope was sufficiently obvious at the time, and 
riequired no explanation ; or if explanation was 
needed, it was given at the time, and to the per- 
rsons to whom they were immediately addressed, 
.and for whose benefit they were intended. 
There was no motive for concealment ; and in- 
deed concealment would have defeated the very 
•end sought to be attained. The language in 
•which they are clothed, therefore, is so plain 
that all cauld readily understand it, and their 
purport must have been quite as intelligible to 
their immediate hearers as it is to us. Far- 
rabies of this class are historical^ but not in the 
sense of being the statement of actual facts and 
occurrences, in opposition to fiction ; but in the 
sense of bearing a formal resemblance to truth, 
by describing what might have happened, as 
'Opposed to that which is improbable or imposei- 



THE PARABLK. 259 

ble. They are historical id form, also, as distin- 
guished from allegorical and mystical, inasmuch 
as they have but one obvious or grammatico-his- 
lorical sense. In this class of parables, the nar- 
rative or story ansvt'ers to th? protasis or imme- 
diate representation in the allegorical parables, 
while the doctrinal, or moral truth, or duty il- 
lustrated and enforced, corresponds to the apo 
dosis. The story, or protasis, may be true in 
every particular, or it may be. merely founded 
on truth, or it may be wholly fictitious. The 
historical verity of the tale is not at all essential ; 
iind in point of fact, most, if not all, of our 
Lord's moral parables are fictitious. In the em- 
ployment of such illustrative examples, our Sa- 
viour is no more responsible for their literal and 
historical truth, than is the novelist, who, for a 
similar purpose, gathers flowers from the domain 
of fiction, responsible for the truth of the inci- 
dents which he has grouped together. Nay, 
more than this; a moral talc may be framed in 
accordance with popular ideas, even though 
such ideas are known to be founded in error. 
Our Saviour, therefore, should not be. regardf-d 
as compromising in the smallest degree his 
character as an authoritative moral teacher, if 
he should be found in any instance to have laid 
hold of popular ide<ns, though groundless, for 
the purpose of mere illustration. The parable 
of Dives and Lazjuus, for exam}»le, may in some 
particulars, have been constructed in accommo- 
dation to the prevalent, but erroneous, and es- 
sentially pagan notions of the common people, 
without its divine author intending thereby to 
commit himself to the truth of those opinions, 



200 THE PARABLE. 

or to vouch for their coriformity to the reality of' 
things, 

The moral and historical parables of our Lord 
have been frequently classed by commentators- 
among fables ; and the ancients (Aristotle, Cice- 
ro, Quinctillian) place the difference between 
them only in the more or less ample treatment 
of the subject; inasmuch as the fable was regar- 
ded by them as the more finished production of 
the tv;o. Some modern critics make the differ- 
ence to consist simply in this, that the fable 
represents the single fact as real, the parable 
only as possible. But the specific difference be- 
tween the two is much more deeply seated than 
this. As to form, in both the moral parable and 
the fable we find a story, which is designed to' 
unfold a truth, or inculcate a duty. But the re- 
gion from which these two species of inventive 
composition derive their imageiy, and draw their 
materials, are not the same. While the parable 
sometimes avails itself of inanimate nature, (e. *.-. 
.the allegorical parables of the Sower, the Tares, 
and the Leaven) irrational creatures are rarely 
introduced, and in our Lords parables never. 
The parable, also, unlike the fable, derives its 
materials only from the territory of the possible- 
and the real. It adheres to probability, and 
teaches through the imagination. When beings 
and powers belonging to a lower sphere, are in- 
troduced into a parable. ^^ they sometimes are, 
they always follow the law of their nature, while 
their acts in accordance with that law are used 
to prefigure or represent those of a higher race. 
The parable declares what ynight have taken 
place, and deduces a moral from it ; whilst the 
flll>]c*, ^'^'ith the same design, describes what cculd 



THE i'ARABLE 261 

nnt posslhlu have iiappened. Biu va-j. ^, .^li I dif- 
ference between the fable and the parable is in- 
fcrnal, and relates to the substance. The ground 
occupied by the writer of fables is much lower 
than that occupied by one who teaches by para- 
bles: and the aim and scope of tables are also 
subordinate and inferior to those of parables. 
The fable, as has been already remarked, confines 
itself to earthly virtues, prudential maxims, or 
commendable human qualities. But the para- 
ble introduces us to a higher sphere of action 
and of duty — a purely moral and spiritual do- 
main. Its element is preeminent!}' in the world 
of mind — rational and responsible men — acting 
not for time only, but for eternity ; w^liile that 
of the fable is essentially of the earth, and never 
lifts itself above the. earth. Unlike the fable, 
the parable never jests at the follies, ridicules 
the faults, or taunts the disappointments of 
mankind; it is full of righteous displeasure, of 
holy rebuke, and condemnation of wrongdoing ; 
it is always earnest, affectionate, and solemn 

Some writers confound the parable with ihe 
proverb ; but the difference between them is ev- 
ident, both in respect to form and substance. 
The Proverb is a pointed, sententious, moral, or 
prudential saying, which passes current among 
the people, of vrhich brevity is au essential char- 
acteristic. The Scriprure Parable is either a 
prophetic allegory, or a continued and well ar- 
ranged narrative of some possible but fictitious 
event, applied to the illustration of some sacied 
truth. It is not, indeed, greatly extended, but 
by no means contracted within the brief .-pice 
of a proverb. There is nothing in the proverb 
corresponding to theprotasisof th^- moral parablo. 



262 THE PARABLE. 

A parable, however, may in some instances have- 
been invented to illustrate a proverb already cur- 
rent. As to its substance, the moral parable al- 
ways contains and inculcates some grave mora/ or 
religious truth, and never an error. A proverb, on 
the contrary, may be good or bad, true or false, 
important or trivial, wise or foolish. The par- 
ables of our Lord admit of no such distinctions 
as these. 

If the distinction we have made in the para- 
bles of our Lord is well founded, then it fur- 
nishes us with a key to their interpretation by 
indicating the right method of procedure. As 
an allegory com.prehends tv;o distinct represen- 
tations, the parables belonging to this class must 
be subjected to a two-fold examination. 1st, Of 
the immediate representation, and 2d, Of the 
representation it was intended to excite. Not 
so the moral parables. These have but one- 
nieaning, and were intended to be understood 
only in their obvious grammatical sense. In 
the allegorical parables all, or nearly all, the 
material circumstances introduced into the im- 
mediate representation, have their counterpart 
in the ultimate repres^entation. But such a 
mode of interpretation would be unjustifiable 
and vicious, when applied to the moral para- 
bles. Into these many circumstances are intro- 
duced merely for the sake of ornament or veri- 
similitude, to beautify them, or to give an air of 
probability and reality to them and make them 
more life-like and entertaining. They were in- 
tended to have no moral significance — no recon- 
dite or occult meaning, — and to demand such a 
meaning is to subject them to the wayward fan- 
cy and lawless imagination of any individual,. 



THE rAKABLE. 263 

who may choose to exercise his ingenuity in 
hunting up a meaning to suit himself. Hence 
the most diversified, fanciful, and contradictory 
interpretations" have been given of these para- 
bles, while their true and only desio:n has often 
been almost entirely lost sight ot. The scope of 
the allegorical parables may generally be ascer- 
tained withoui: difficulty^ Tliese relate to th^ 
kingdom of God viewed in some one of Its' nu- 
merous aspects. They describe prophetically,. 
ii5 has already been remarked, the ectablishmenb 
and spiritual nature of the Christian dispensa- 
tion,— the promulgation of the Gospel and the 
reception it would meet with from different 
classes of hearers, — the planting, growth, and 
character of the Chi"istian Church; — or else the 
rise and progress of religion in the individual 
soul. The scope of the moral parables m.ay be 
gathered either from the preceding or subse- 
quent context. Sometimes it is foimally an- 
nounced. Thus we are told in St. Luke 18: 1 
that the parable of the unjust judge v;as spoken 
by our Lord in order to inculcate the duty and 
advantage of persevering prayer. The parable 
of the rich glutton (Lu. 12: 16-20) is prefaced 
by the following caution in v. 15. ^- Take heed 
and beware of covetou-ness." The parable of 
the Pharisee and Publican is introduced with 
the announcement that our Lord ".-pake this 
parable unto certain who trusted in themselves 
that they were righteous, and despised others." 
(Lu. IS ; 9.) The Saviour concludes the parable 
of the unmerciful creditor, who would not for- 
give his debtor the minutest portion of his debt, 
though much had been forgiven him, with the 
following application : " So likewise shall my 



264 THE PARABLE. 

heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from 
your hearts forgive not every one his brother 
their trespasses" (Matt. 18: 35.) When no 
declaration is prefixed or subjoined to a parable 
of this class, its scope may be collected from a 
consideration of the subject-matter, or the occa- 
^^ion on which it was delivered. Having ascer- 
tained the scope or design of the parable, we are 
to interpret it in its grammatico historical sense 
in accordance with that design. But no rule 
has been more frequently transgressed than 
this ; and no portion of the Xew Testament has' 
been more grossly p^^rverted, tortured and 
abused by hunters after allegories than the 
moral and doctrinal parables. A mystical or 
spiritual meaning has been given even to the 
most trivial circumstances introduced into the 
parable, by means of which their power for edi- 
fication has been supposed to be wonderfully 
increased. Ey this process the rich man, for in- 
stance, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, is 
made to denote '* the high priest under the law;" 
the beggar means '' the Gentiles;" the beggar's 
death signifies *' the close of the Levitical dis- 
pensation ;" the lifting up of the rich man's eyes 
in hell meana '^ a conviction of the condemning 
power of the law;" his desire to have his breth- 
ren warned is *' the desire of the Gentile con- 
verts to carry the Gospel to apostate Jews ; ' the 
gul})h fs '' the time appointed foi* tlie blindness 
of Israel;" the five brethren are "that part of 
Israel broken off through unbelief" Again ' 
what can be more sin»fi4e and intelligible than 
the parable of the Good Samaritan, which so 
boautifally inculcates universal benevolence? 
And yet In the hands of some inteiDret^^s it 



THE PARABLE. 2(i5 

turns out to be a perfect riddle. By one expos- 
itor it is made to teach the mission and example 
of Christ ; the traveller is human nature, or 
Adam, the head of the race, who leaves the 
heavenl}'- city and falls into the power of Satan, 
and is all but killed. Christ now finds him and 
restores him. The wine poured into his wounds 
is the blood which Christ shed ; and the oil is 
the anointing of the Holy Spirit; the binding 
up is the Sacraments of the Church. The ring 
in the parable of the prodigal son is described 
by one as the everlasting love of God, or tlie 
seal of the Spirit ; the sinner is called the 
younger son, because man as a sinner is younger 
than man as righteous ; the citizen to whom he 
went vras a legal preacher; the swine were self- 
righteous persons; the husks were works of 
righteousness; the fatted calf was Christ ; the 
shoes vrere means of upright conversation, the 
doctrines and precepts of Scripture; the ;nusic 
which the elder brother heard was the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, etc. All such interpretations 
may exhibit the ingenuity and piety of the in- 
terpreter, but they do so at the expense of his 
common sense, and in utter disregard of the ob- 
vious intention of our Lord. 

The following extract from McCleliand's 
Manual of Sacred Interpretation exhibits a far 
more sober and correct mode of interpretation : 
^' The parable of the ten virgins is desigi^ed to 
teach the folly of those who neglect preparation 
for their Kedeemer's coming. Virgins are se- 
lected, not on account of their purity, but be- 
cause virgins in those days played an important 
part at bridals; and a bridal feast was mad'e the 
basis of the fable [parable] The virginity. 



266 THE PARABLE. 

therefore, oL the personages is a mere circum- 
stance, which teaches nothing. So is the dis- 
tinction into "five wise" and "five foolish," 
Nothing can be inferred as to the comparative 
number of nominal an i sincere professors of re- 
ligion in the world. The two classes are equal- 
ized to guard against all speculations on a subject 
foreign to the speaker's object. The "sleeping" 
of the wise virgins is another mere circumstance 
introduced to bring about the catastrophe in a 
natural way, — not to teach the dangerous doc- 
trine that the best Christians fail in spiritual 
vigihince, and are very liable to be taken by sur- 
prise, when the Master calls them. The truth ' 
is, that their sleeping was designed to be rather 
complimentary than otherwise, as it brought 
out the fact that they were provided rmd ready. 
They had nothing to fear ; a little refreshment, - 
therefore, was not amiss, especially as they had 
no duties to perform until the arrival of the pro- 
cession. The Parable of the rich man and Laz- 
arus is another example. The angels ^vho carry 
the soul of Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, proba- 
bly belong, as well as Abraham's bosom itself, 
to the machinery, and nothing is deduciblefrom 
it. The representation of the rich man and 
Abraham being in the same region, and within 
sight of each other, is an image taken from the 
ancient idea of Hades, and must not be listed 
to prove that the souls of the blessed hold in- 
tercourse with those of the wicked in another 
world." The interpreter should constantly bear 
in mind that the moral parables are intended 
rather for illustration than for proof; and that 
consequently no doctrine should be founded on 
the Parables, as its ultimate ground. Not that 



THE PARABLE. 267 

the Parable is witliout its doctrine; but that it 
is in no case the first revelation or statement of 
doctrine, and is merely the elucidation of a doc- 
trine previously revealed. All doctrines of con- 
sequence are unfolded in clear, unfigurative ex- 
pressions. Hence paraVjolic theology, is not ar- 
gument ative. It forms no part of the analogy 
of faith. On the contrary, the analogy of faith 
must regulate its teachings so far that they 
should harmonize with or illustrate it. 

The following classified list of most, if not all, 
of our Lord's Paiables will assist the student in 
his interpretation of them : — 

CLASS I. 

AUegortcal and- Prophetical Parables, 

1. The Sower.— Matt. 13 : 3-8, 18-23. (Mar. 4. 
3-9, 14-20. Lu. 8: 4-8, 11-15.) 

2. The Tares.— Matt. 13: 24-30, 36-43. 

3. The Mustard Seed.— Matt. 13: 31, 32. (Mar. 
4: 30-32. Lu. 13: 18, 19.) 

4. The Leaven.— Matt. 13: 33. (Lu. 13: 20,21.) 

5. The Hidden Treasure.— Matt. 13: 44. 

6. The Pearl.— Matt. 45, 46. 

7. The Draw Net.— Matt. 13: 47-50. 

S. The Laborers in the Vineyard. — Matt. 20: 
1-16. 

9. The Wicked Husbandman.— Matt. 21: 33- 
44. (Mar. 12: 1-11. Lu. 20: 9-18.) 

10. The Wedding Garment, Marriage of the 
Kings Son.— Matt. 22: 1-14. 

IL The Ten Virgins.— Matt. 25: 1-13 

12. The Talents— Matt. 25: 14-30. 

13. The Seed Growing Insensibly. — Mar. 4: 
26-29. 

14. The Different Seivants— Lu. 12: 39-48. 
(Matt. 43-51.) 



268 :<YMBOLS. 

15. The Barren Flu Tree.— Lu. 13: 6-9. 

16. The Great Supper.— Lu. 14: 16-24 

17. The Prodigal Son.— Lu. 15: 11-32. 

18. The Founds.— Lu. 19: 11-27. 

CLASS II. 

Historical^ Doctrinal^ and Ethical Parables. 
L The L"^nmerciful Servant. — Matt. IS: 23-35. 

2. The Two Sons.— Matt. 21: 28-32. 

3. The TvroDebtors — Lu. 7: 41-43. 

4. The Good Samaritan.— Lu. 10: 30-37. 

5. The Friend at Midnieht.—Lu. 11: 5-1(1 

6. The Rich Fool— Lu. ^12: 16-21. 

7. The Lost Sheep.— Lu. 15: 3-7. (Matt. IS: 
12-14.) 

8. The Cnjust Steward. — Lu. 10: 1-8. 

9. The Rich Man and Lazarus. — Lu. 16: 19-31. 

10. The L^nproiitable Servants.— Lu. 17: 7-10. 

11. The I^njust Judge.— Lu. LS: 1-8. 

12. The Pharisee and Publican. — Lu. IS: t>-15. 



CFTAPTER XXIL 

SYMBOLS AND THEIR INTEPvPRETATION, 

Symbols are significant and representative ob- 
ject-s, signs, or actions, employed for the purposo 
of communicating ideas. The word symbol 
{(rvu,(^o\ov') is derived from the Greek words ^-tv 
and f^a/./.u, to cast, or place together, with a view to 
- comparison or attentive consideration. The 
original word was anciently employed in various 
ways. I'hus it was customary to call the Apos- 
tles' Creed a symbol, probably in consequence 
-of the traditional, but erroneous belief, that the 



fcVMBOJ.b. 2G1> 

Apoj^tles had each contributed, or thrown in, his 
article to that formulary oj'fciith.^- 

Hence the confessions of faith, catechisms^ 
liturgies, and other doctrinal standards of the 
Reformed Churches of Europe, came to bestj'led 
symbolical books. The term symbol was also ap- 
plied to military watchwords or counter-signs 
by wbicli the soldiers of' an army could distin- 
guish each other. But the most frequent appli- 
cation of the word was to the rites of the heathen 
religion, w^here those who were instructed in its 
mysteries, or esoteric doctrines, and admitted 
to the knowledge of its ijeculiar services and 
private ceremonies, had certain signs, marks, or- 
tokens. called ^^y;}./-";!^^/, delivered to them, and on 



*The first particular account of the traditional be- 
lief respecting the composition of the Apostles' Creed, 
is given by Ambrose, in the latter half of the 4th 
century ; and in a sermon attributed to Augustine, 
who flourished a little later, the author assigns to 
each one of the Apostles a particular clause, or arti- 
cle ; as to St. Peter, tlie article, *' I believe in God the 
Father Ahuighty ;" to St. John, '-'Maker of heaven 
and earth," and so on. But passing by the objection 
to this theory, that had the facts been as here stated, 
we should doubtless have had some intimation of 
them in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the records of 
the early Churcli, the fallacy as well as the absurdity 
of the statement is evident from the fact that the Ar- 
ticle *'tl:e communion of saints," attributed to Simon 
Zelotes, is not found in any Creed till about 40O 
years after Christ ; and the article of Christ's descent 
into Hell, attributed to St. Thomas, was neither in 
the early Roman, nor the Oriental Creed. It was 
first inserted in the Creed of the Church of Aquilia 
(Italy) about the year 400; and did not find its way 
into the Koman Creed until A. D. 600. 



270 SYMBOLS. 

the declaration or presentation of these, they 
were admitted without hesitation into any tem- 
ple, to the secret rites and worship of that god, 
whose symbols they had received. 

Pictorial symbols, as a medium of communi- 
cating ideas, originated in the necessities of 
mankind, and may be traced back to the ear- 
liest period of antiquity. Their origin, nature, 
and use, may be best understood by considering 
briefly the rise and progress of written language. 
Let us then, in imagination, carry ourselves 
back to the infancy of the human race, before 
the use of letters was kno^^vn, and when the on- 
ly established mode of intercommunication 
among men was that of vocal language. How, 
in such a state of society, may we rationally sup- 
pose that one person would inform another re- 
mote from him, and with whom he could not 
communicate orally, of any circumstances con- 
nected with a particular object, with which he 
desired him to become acquainted? The first 
attempt v.'ould be to sketch a rude drawing of 
the object, and substitute that for the object it- 
self. In this manner the idea of a man, a horse, 
a dog, a house, or a tree, may, as single objects, 
be as distinctly communicated as by alphabetic 
characters.; while two or more houses may be 
made significant of a town, and two or more 
trees, of a wood. By the continuous copying, 
in successive series, of such familiar objects as 
the train of our ideas might call for, a kind of 
connected narrative of passing events might be 
furnished, which, though very imperfect and 
often quite ambiguous, might, on the whole, be 
generally understood. Such may be supposed 
to be the first attempt of men in the earliest 



SYMBOLS. 271 

stages of civilization, to communicate their ideas 

by written characters. This would be very 

properly termed picture-writing, or ohject-icriting ; 

for it would consist of delineations of the mate- 
rial forms or shape of objects, addressed to the 

.eye instead of the ear, for the purpose of sug- 
gesting to the mind the idea of those objects, 
and certain circumstances connected with them. 
It is manifest, however, that the scope of this 
kind of imitative language would be extremely 
limited, and would entirely fail of delineating 
the internal qualities of objects, and also of ex- 
pressing abstract ideas. The next step would 
be to remedy as far as possible this defect by 
associating conventionally with certain external 
forms and images, such properties or abstract 
ideas, as these forms would be likely to excite, 
and employ the one to express the other. Thus 
an eye might be made to signify waichfulncs,'^, or 
care\ if open ; and sleep^ or forgcifulness^ if closed : 
an arm, pcncer ; an arrow, calamity] a chain. 
bondage; a bow, strccgih^ or victory; a shield, 
defence. In like manner, one object possessing 

, certain properties in a remarkable degree, might 
be substituted for some other object, to which 

. one or more of the qualities or properties be- 
longing to that object. »vere ascribed. Thus a 
fox might be delineated to represent a cunning 

^ man ; a lamb, a meek or gentle one ; a lion, a 

, strong and powerful one ; a tiger or leopard, a 
ferocious one, or a bear, a fierce and savage one. 
On the same principle compound ideas might 

^ be expressed by a combination of characters. 

Thus, if it was desired to represent a man who 

-was both powtrful and ferocious, it would be 

, naturnl to make a figure compounded of the 



Zi'Jl I^YMBOLS. 

iion and the leopard ; the figure of a mun en- 
closed in a square, might denote a prisoner. 
For the purpose of economizing time and space, 
resort would next be had to abbreviation or sub- 
stitution, as, for example, a part of a figure put 
by synedoche for the whole. Thus the idea of 
a man represented by the delineation of his 
whole figure, might now be signified by his head, 
or his legs alone. 

What appears to be reasonable and probable 
in theory, is found to accord with facts among 
all the primitive nations of antiquity. Among 
the Egyptians, this kind of picture-writing, or 
expression of ideas by representations of visible 
otgects and marks, was carried to the highest 
degree of perfection. Those historical tradi- 
tions and sacred mysteries, which were regarded 
as of sufficient importance to be transmitted to 
posterity, were engraven on their pyramids, the 
walls of their temples, and other works of art; 
and hence the name Hieroglyphic, sacred sculp- 
ture, from two Greek words .s;?/?,- holy and y>^v(pco^ 
to engrave. It was for a long time supposed that 
the hieroglyphic or ideographic writing of the 
Egyptians was a mysterious science, the secret of 
which was known only to the priests, and by 
them studiously and religiously concealed from 
the curiosity of the multitude. But modern 
discoveries have shown clearly that this writing, 
though called by the Greeks sacred — in itself 
veiled no mysteries, and must have been wgD 
understood by the educated class of Egyptians. 
The Hieroglyphics in question, though similar 
in form, are now ascertained to have consisted 
of three distinct classes, each class subserving a 
parp3se of its own. These are denominated the 



SYMBOLS. 273 

Curiologic or figurative Hieroglyph, the symbolic^ 
or tropical, and the phonetic. To the first class, 
belong those in which the representation of an 
object either entire or abridged, conveys the idea 
of the object itself and nothing else. This is 
simple imitation, a pure picture writing and cor- 
responds to the paintings, pictures and sculpture 
of the present day. This class of hieroglyphs is 
called, by some writers, figurative ; not, howevei', 
in the sense in which that term is employed in 
rhetoric as synonymous with tropical, but as de- 
noting that the sign employed is an imitation of 
the figure, shape or form of some sensible object. 
It corresponds analogically to words in alpha- 
betical language taken in their primary and lit- 
eral sense, and may, therefore, to preserve the 
analogy, be denominated the hieroglyph proper. 
Such are a circle for the sun, a crescent for the 
moon, an arch painted blue for the sky, the 
proper figure of an ,ibis to represent the bird 
itself. .The second class is composed of those 
which are either the signs of objects very dif* 
ferent in appearance from the forms of the hie- 
roglyph, which designate them ; or else denote 
abstract ideas which are not the objects of sense, 
but purely intellectual. Thus, when the figure 
of a lion is drawn, not for the purpose of desig- 
nating that animal, but to signify strength ; — of 
a fly, to represent iynpudertce, or of a tree to d<v 
note an obedient people. In this class the desig- 
nation is not a matter of imitation or of proper 
likeness, but one w^hich merely bears some an- 
alogy to it, real or supposed, imaginative, or con- 
ventional. Hieroglyphs, of this class, therefore, 
correspond to words taken, in a tropical or meta 
phorical sense in alphabetic language. In the 

18 



274 SYMBOLS. 

third class, the sign or tigure does not stand for 
the particular object which it resembles, nor lor 
an abstract idea; but it indicates a particular 
sound. The figure delineated in the Phonetic 
hieroglyph, and representing a letter, was the 
likeness of some animal or other object, the 
name of which in the spoken language com- 
menced with the sound of that letter. Thus 
the letter A w^as represented by an eagle, the 
initial letter of the Egyptian w^ord signifying 
eagle (A horn) being a. Of course there would 
be found many objecls the name of which began 
with the sound of A, and hence an opportunity 
was afforded of choosing from among the va- 
I'ious homophonous characters, which the writer 
was at liberty to employ. Accordingly we find 
that a great number of difTerent signs were em- 
ployed at the option of the writer, to express 
the same letter, and this circumstance creates 
the principal difficulty in regard to their inter- 
pretation. The different kinds of hieroglyphics 
and their uses may be illustrated by their appli- 
cation to the name of the Egyptian god Osiris. 
To suggest the idea of this god by a figurative, 
curiologic, or proper hieroglyphic, a full picture 
of the god must be drawn, or at least some 
prominent and characteristic part, by which he 
would be easily recognized : just as w^e make a 
full length portrait, or merely the bust of a par- 
ticular individual. To indicate the same by a 
symbolic or tropical hieroglyph, a picture must 
be drawn of the tiara and wand, the symbols of 
the god, with which he is always represented. 
To express the same by phonetic, or alphabeti- 
cal hieroglyphs, a series of pictures must be 
drawn, of visibly objects, the- first sounds in 



SYMBOLvS. 275 

vvho80 names sluill be the successive soiunuls in 
tlie word Osir, or, us written in the oriental 
manner, without the intermediate vowel, Osr. 
The first sound might be represented by the 
picture of a reed, the Egyf)tian name of which 
is okr ; the second, by the picture of a child, in 
Egyptian si ; the third by th3 picture of a mouth, 
in Egyptian ro. Phonetic characters or signs, 
it is ascertained, form by far the most numerous 
class of Egyptian hieroglyphs. All Chinese 
writing was originally ideographic and imitative. 
But now, at least one half of the Chinese char- 
acters are merely phonetic or alphabetic, in the 
sense of syllabic. The Mexican hieroglyphs, 
which have come to light, were ideographic and 
pictorial. 

We discover in Phonetic hieroglyphs the germ 
of alphabetical writing; and although the inter- 
val between the two is apparently very consid- 
erable, yet it does not admit of a reasonable 
doubt, that the latter originated in the former ; 
that from this modified hieroglyph there arose, 
in process of time, a regular alphabet, con- 
structed so as to represent and express the va- 
rious sounds uttered by the human voice, — a 
method of communicating ideas by written 
characters so vastly superior to the former, as 
soon completely to supersede the more primi- 
tive and cumbersome method; so that in most 
countries all traces of it are forgotten. The hi- 
eroglyphic origin of the ancient alphabets is ev- 
ident from the names given to the letters, as 
well as from the resemblance which can still be 
perceived between their present and their orig- 
inal form 

The names of the Hebrew letters and of those 



276 SYMBOLS, 

of other Shemitic languages are significant Thus 
Aleph^ the name of the first letter of the He- 
brew alphabet signifies an ox ; Betli^ the second 
letter, a house ; Gimel, the third letter, a cmneL 
These letters were at first pictures, or rude like- 
nesses of a hut, and of the two animals, or of the 
heads of the two animals just specified; pro- 
ceeding on the very fVimiliar system found on 
the ancient Dutch tiles, and not yet entirely* 
exploded in books for children, where an ass, a 
bull, and a cat, are associated with the first three 
letters of the Roman alphabet. The letter D, 
named Daleih^ was evidently at first represented 
by a door^ the name ®f which begins with that 
sound, and the picture of which would thus be- 
come the letter of that sound. The letter van 
("^) signifies a AooZ:, particularly a tenter-hook, such 
as is driven into a wall or post, for the purpose 
of suspending things upon it. Now if we trace 
the different figures of this letter through the 
several JShemitic alphabets, we shall find them 
all derived from the same source, and all 
corresponding in their outlines to the original 
signification of the name. The letter Ileth (f^) 
means in Hebrew ^ fence or enclosure, and is the 
original source of our aspirate IT. In the Baby- 
Ionian alphabet this letter is an exact enclosuic^ 
of a triangular form; in the Phoenician, an en- 
closure with an opening at each end ; in the old 
Hebrew, a close enclosure, and so on. The capi 
tal letter T in the ancient Phoenician and He- 
brew alphabets precisely resembled a cross, (the 
name of the Hebrew letter Tau (n) which re- 
semblance is still preserve<l in the Eoman al 



yYMHOL.S. 217 

[)labet.'^ That wo cannot now in many instan- 
ces trace the resemblance betv/een the present 
letters of the ancient alphabets and the partic- 
ular objects after which they were named, is 
owing to the various mutations to which they 
kave been unavoidably subjected in the course 
of time. 

It does not appear that the ancient Egyptians 
ever advanced beyond , phonetic writing. For 
we know that no proper alphabet existed among 
them tiM after the advent of Okrist. When the 
Piible was translated into their language by the 

*The original Greek alphabet was doubtless the 
same as the Plioenician or Shemitic. This is evident 
from the following considerations: 1. The Greek 
letters used in the most ancient inscriptions are, as 
to Jomi, essentially the same as the corresponding 
characters found in tlie Phoeniciaii inscriptions and 
on Hebrew coins. 2 The relative pontlon of nearly 
all the letters in the two alphabets is the same. 3. 
The names of the Greek letters arepadically the same 
as those of the corresponding Shemitic letters. 

The priority of the Phoenician letters is satisfac- 
torily established by the fact that the names of most 
of the Pha3nician letters, as stated in the text, are 
si^nificont ; but tlie names of the Greek letters are en- 
tirely without significance; the words Alpha, Beta, 
Ga-ama, cfcc, are merely imi<^ations of the names of 
the Hebrew letters, ar;d '* simply designate certain 
figures." jS'ow if we admit that the Greeks, whose 
language was radically distinct from the Shemitic 
group, borrewed the forms and names of the Phoeni- 
cian letters, we see at once why those names should 
have no meaning in Greek. Hence in the Roman 
alphabet, which succeeded the Greek, the names at 
tached to the letters are very properly dropped alto- 
gether, and the letters only retained. 



278 SYMBOLS. 

early missionaries, it was done by means of an 
alphabet made from the Greek. The most stri- 
king difference between the two forms of wri- 
ting are the following : 1. In alphabetic writing 
sounds are represented directly, and ideas only 
indirectly; but in hieroglyphical writing it is 
the reverse; ideas are represented directly, and 
sounds only indirectly. This peculiarity in the 
latter gives it an advantage over the former of 
considerable importance; viz., that when the 
pictures are drawn at full length, or if abbrevia- 
ted, when the key of the abbreviation is known, 
or the tropical sense understood, it is a species 
of writing addressed to all nations, and may be 
interpreted without the knowledge of their vo- 
cal language, which is necessary to the reception 
of an idea from alphabetic word. Thus the 
Chinese written language is entirely distinct 
from any one of the numerous oral dialects in 
use in the empire, and serves the purpose of a 
universal tongue. This advantage, however, is 
far more than counterbalanced Dy the many 
disadvantages attending it. 2. When hiero- 
glyphs represent sounds, there is an endless va- 
riety of characters for the sound ; and the fig- 
ures chosen to represent the sound are not ar- 
bitrary: whereas in alphabetic writing, the fig- 
ures are arbitrary and conventional, and each 
elementar}^ sound has its appropriate character. 
3. Hieroglyphs represent full syllables ; but al- 
phabets only the elements of syllables. 

From the preceding remarks it appears that, 
while alphabetic language may be traced back 
to phonetic hieroglyphs, so symbolical language 
had its origin in what may be called tropical or 
symbolical hieroglyphs. Thus we see thatsym- 



SYMBOLS. 279 

bols are the representatives of other forms and 
other ideas than those which tlie material ob- 
jects themselves, or their imitative figures would 
naturally and obviously convey, and that, con- 
sequently, they bear an analogy to metaphors 
and tropes in verbal language, though by no 
means are they identical, as some writers have 
supposed. When Christ calls himself "the 
Bright and Morning Star," it is a metaphor ; but 
when a star is employed by the Prophet Balaam 
to presignify Christ, (Num. 24: 17) it is a pro- 
phetic symbol. The figure of a lion, delineated 
on the military standard of the Hebrew nation 
to signify the tribe of Judah, was a symbol : but 
when Christ is called " the lion pf the tribe of 
Judah," a metaphor is employed. Symbols are 
always thin (/s ; metaphors are always loords. Sym- 
bols approach more nearly to allegories, than 
they do to metaphors ; because the allegory, 
though verbal in form, like the symbol, stands 
for things and ideas obviously different and dis- 
tinct from those expressed by it. The use of 
symbols and symbolical hieroglyphics for the or- 
dinary purpose of communicating information, 
has been entirely superceded by alphabetic lan- 
guage; but, notwithstanding, many are still em- 
ployed in consequence of their beauty and fit- 
ness to the ideas they are intended to convey. 
Thus the working tools of the operative mason 
are employed in speculative freemasonry, as 
symbols of moral truths and duties. The flag 
of our country is the symbol of our federative 
nationality. The anchor is a- symbol of hope\ the 
cross^ of Chrisilaruti/] the crescent^ of Idamism. An 
ordinary finger-ring has no significance, and is 
worn only for ornament; but the plain wedding- 



280 SYMBOLS. 

ring is a symbol of perpetual afFection and fidel- 
ity. The language of symbols has in every age 
been found particularly suited to religious pur- 
poses, as giving additional force and significance 
to ideas expressed in vocal language, and adapt- 
ed to afford material aid in deej^ening religious 
impressions, and av^^akening religious emotions 
through the medium of sensible objects address- 
ed to the imagination. The Hebrews, in the 
providence of God, were moreover brought into 
contact for many years with the religious rites 
and usages of a people, abounding in symbolical 
rites and ordinances. For both these reasons, 
we should naturally expect to find many sym- 
bols employed in the Hebrew ritual, and that 
not a few of them would be such a,s, from the 
accident of their position, the Israelites had be- 
come familiar with in the land of their ?ervitude. 
Accordingly we find the Old Testament abound- 
ing in symbols. The worship of the Jewish 
Tabernacle and Temple, with the exception of 
the Psalmody, was entirely symbolical. Of this 
nature were all the sacrifices and offerings, the 
burning of incense, &c., &c. Even from the 
simple ritual of the Christian Church the lan- 
guage of symbols is not entirely excluded. The 
two sacraments ordained by Christ himself are 
strikingly symbolic; — the water in the one sym- 
bolizing the doctrine and necessity of regeneration 
or an inward and spiritual change by the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit; the bread and wine in 
the other symbolizing the body and blood of 
Christ, and teaching the doctrine of vicarious 
atonement and the necessity of a vital union by 
faith with the Saviour of men. Symbols were 
also found to be an admirable vehicle of proph- 



SYMBOLS. 281 

ccy, and accordingly wo find the prophetical 
writings, particularly of Ezekiel, Daniel, and 8t 
John abounding in symbolical hieroglyphics. 
Hence the study of symbolical language is emi- 
nently deserving the attention of the ministers 
of religion. Symbols and emblems,"^ like words, 
have a precise and determinate signification ; 
and, like words also, are foi the most part con- 
ventional, and acquire their meaning from usage. 
'I'he interpreter, therefore, is not at liberty to 
affix any meaning he pleases to them, but on- 
ly such as usage has given them. Not that 
symbols have or can have, uniformly, but one 
meaning; on the contrary, like words, they may 
have, and often do have, several significations as 

*The nouns symbol and einblcvi^ and the correspond- 
ing adjectives sijvidollcal and emblematical y though not 
strictly synonomous, are sometimes used interchange- 
ably. Thus the elements in the Lord's Supper, are 
sometimes called symbols of Christ's body and blood, 
and sometimes sacred emblems. The word emblem 
(in Greek i(jt,{o\Yi^cc from £v and foKkP^av, to ihrovj in, to 
impress) literally signifies something inserted or stamped 
anas a maric. It is employed most frequently in 
English to signify a figurative representation, which 
by the power of association suggests ^o the mind some 
idea expressed lo tlie senses. Crabb represents the 
difference between emblem and symbol thus: "the 
emblem is that sort of fi'jure of thought by which we 
make corporeal objf^cts to stand for moral properties ; 
thus the dove is represented as tlie cmbltm of meekness, 
or the beehive is made the c//z^^c7« of industry; the 
sijmbol is that species of emblem whicli is converted 
into a constituted sign among men ; thus 'the olive 
and laurel are the symbols of peace, and have been 
recognized as such among barbarous as well as en- 
lightened nations." 



282 SYMBOLS. 

employed in different relations and circumstan- 
ces. At the same time these different meanings 
and various shades and modifications of signifi- 
cation all naturally flow from the radical import 
of the symbol. For example : The sun was 
among the ancients the legitimate symbol of 
supreme authoyity, and the stars of subordinate aii- 
ihorlty. Now, in strict accordance with this ge- 
neric idea, the sun, in reference to the family 
relation, was employed to symbolize the father, 
the moon, the mother, and the stars, the sons ; 
as in Joseph's Dream. But, in respect to a king- 
dom or empire, the sun represented the supreme 
power, whether vested in a male or female, or 
plurality of persons, and- the moon is employed 
to represent the people or subjects of the kings. 
Stars sometimes symbolize not inferior magis- 
trates, but kings. In this case, however, more 
than one king is spoken of, or the Ruler of the 
Universe is alluded to in the context as the 
King of kings, while the powers ordained by 
him are represented as stars. Now, in order to 
ascertain the precise meaning of a symbol in 
any particular instance of its occurrence, we 
must pursue the same course as when endeav- 
oring to ascertain the specific meaning of a word. 
In the prophecies of Daniel and John, many of 
the prophetic sym*bols employed are explained ; 
the meaning of others may be found elsewhere ; 
and where we fail to discover it by collating 
other passages of Scripture, recourse may be had 
to profane authors. 

There is one thing in relation to the employ- 
ment of symbols in prophetic Scripture, v^^hich 
is worthy of special notice; 1 mean what may 
not improperly, perhaps, be designated their 



SYMBOLS. 283 

chronology. " In verbal description/' says Car- 
penter, " there is no difficulty in properly ad- 
justing the several occurrences which pass un- 
der review, and assigning to each one its respec- 
tive order in the series, and its particular epocii 
in the general history. So also, if it be desired 
to trace and delineate the effects of any partic- 
ular principle or transaction on different states 
of society, or communities of persons, a speaker 
or writer may do so with the greatest facility, 
passing from one state to the other in regular 
succession, and vvitl>out the remotest probability 
of misleading his hearers or readers. Thus we 
have historical works extant, in which the au- 
thors have, in successive chapters, narrated the 
history of the community to which their writings 
appertained, in its social, its civil, and its politi- 
cal state; each of ^vhich topics has been again 
divided into separate branches; then has fol- 
lowed a review of ecclesiastical matters, syn- 
chronizing with the events enibraced in the 
former sections of the work: whicli review has, 
perhaps, been divided into the internal and the 
external affairs of the Church, and each of these 
again into several other distinct heads of in- 
quiry. But from such a distribution and ar- 
rangement of the several parts of the work, no 
inconvenience will arise, if the author but dis- 
tinctly mark the limits of each, and properly 
adjust the whole of the general history. The 
reader of sucli a ^vork will very naturally pass 
from one to the other, carrying back his mind 
to the common epoch, at the beginning of each 
of the respective divisions. It is not so, how- 
ever, in symbolical or pictorial representations. 
If a writer employing these be desirous to place 



284 SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS. 

before the mind of his reader the leading occur- 
rences of a state, throughout the entire period 
of its history, he will be compelled by the prin- 
ciples of the science, sometimes to represent 
distant events as existing at the same 2^(^rio(l of 
time^ as in Daniel's vision of the great image and 
that of the four beasts ; and at others, to employ 
a successive series of symbols to denote occurren- 
ces, which are strictly syyichrofiical, as in the book 
of Revelation. And, however skilful and. cau- 
tious he may be, it will be found impracticable 
to mark the boundaries of time, and the trans- 
ition from one event to another with as much 
strength and clearness, as is done in verbal de- 
scription or narration.""^ 

SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS. 

Intimately connected with the language of 
symbols is that of significant actions or signs, 
called symbolical actions. In the early tiges of 
the world verbal language must have been ex- 
tremely rude, narrow, and equivocal. To sup- 
ply in part the deficiencies of speech or to add 
to the force of oral language, men were led to 
make use of apt and significant signs, gestures 
and actions; to which indeed, they were prompt- 
ed by nature. Hence mutual converse was 
maintained by a mixed discourse of words and 
actions, whence came the eastern phrase of the 
voice of the sign. Ex. 4 : 8. But this custom 
which originated in necessity, being impro^'ed 
into ornament, subsisted long after the necessity 
ceased, especially among Oriental nations, where 

*Carpenter's Popular Lectures on Biblical Criticism 
and Interpretation. 



SYMDOLICAL ACTIONS. 285 

natural temperament inclined them to a mode 
of conversation which so well exercised tlieir 
vivacity by motion, and so much gratified it by 
a perpetual representation of material images. 
Many of these were the natural language of ere 
ation and common to all nations ; others were 
arbitrary and conventional. The Old Testament 
abounds in examples of the use of symbolical 
actions, or of instruction or information con- 
veyed by arbitrary but significant signs. The 
New Testament also supplies some instances; 
but they are neither so numerous in their oc- 
currence, nor so complicated in their circum- 
stances, nor so uniform in their design, as are 
those of the Old. Thus the prophet Isaiah (ch. 
XX ) walked naked (i. e. divested of ttie mantle 
of sackcloth, or prophetic garment) and bare- 
footed, to represent symbolically the captivity 
of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, upon whom 
the Hebrews placed too much reliance, instead 
of wholly trusting in God. So in Ezek. ch. iv. 
the y)rophet is commanded to do several things 
which would seem absurd, were they not sym 
bolical; and in ch. xii. there is an explanation 
given of this kind of actions. The false prophet 
pushed with horns of iron, to denote the entire 
overthrow of the Syrians. Jeremiah, by God's 
direction, hid the linen girdle in the hole of a 
rock, near the Euphrates ; broke a potter's ves 
sel in sight of the people ; put on bonds and 
yokes, and cast a book into the Euphrates — all 
these were symbolical acts. 

Actions of this nature in the Old 'J'estament 
have commonly but one ol)ject in view ; viz. the 
aduml)ration of some future event, under a .sen 
siVde representation of one kind or another 



280 SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS. 

Those which occur in the New 'restament ap 
pear to be of a mixed character ; but few as they 
are, some of them are vehicles of prophecy, oth- 
ers of purely moral instruction The act of Aga- 
bus, when he caused his own hands and feet to 
b^e bound with the girvlle of St. Paul to intimate 
that the Apostle himself ^vould be bound in like 
manner by the Jews of Jerusalem, was of the 
former description; to wdiicli we may add the 
two miracles of the draught of fishes on the Lake 
of Galilee, one before, and the other after the 
resurrection of our Lord; but both with symbol- 
ical meaning. The following are examples of 
the latter description : 'I'he descent of the Holy 
Spirit in the form of a Dove on our Saviour at 
his baptism was symbolical of the divine influ- 
ence imparted to him without measure. When 
ejesus breathed on his Apostles, and said : •' Re- 
ceive ye the Holy Grhost," this was merely a 
symbolical action denoting the commuaication 
of gifts of the Holy Spirit by him, and their re- 
ception as so communicated by the apostles, 
When Jesus on two several occasions, placed a 
little child in the midst of his disciples, it was a 
symbolical act indicative of the manner in which 
divine truth should be received. When he 
washed his disciples' feet it was to inculcate by 
a most impressive symbolic act, the great duties 
of Christian humility and condescension. When 
he laid his hands upon the sick and infirm, this 
act was only a token or sign of the blessing to 
be bestowed. In like manner, when the same 
ceremony is performed in the ordination of 
ministers of the Gospel, and in the administra- 
tion of confirmation to the baptizi^d, it is noth- 
ing more nor less than a symbolic action signifi- 



NATURE OF TYPES. 28 < 

cant oi the w'ush '.lud desire tlial suitiihle spirit- 
ual ^iil'ts luul graces may bo imparted to the in- 
dividual. SyuiV>()lical actions are much more 
simple and obvious in their import and desi^rn 
than symbols, and consecjuently are of tnisier in- 
t(M-pretation, and re(iuire no w^pecial rules. 



CirArTEK XXIII. 
THE NATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 

The word Type (Gr. tu-tto;^ from Tvrrio^ to strike) 
proi)erly signifies a /nark made by a blow or in 
any other manner, as a sta7np or impress on coin 
produced by a die, the mark of a letter, cut in 
stone, Arc, then 2. fonn^ J^^/wX) shape, pattern, or 
model, after which anything is made. These 
secondary meanings ail naturally spring from the 
primary. The word has been received into va- 
rious modern languages and employed in differ- 
ent departments of science — the radical idea, in 
connexion with specific differences, being re- 
tained throughout. In numismatics, it has retained 
most of its original meaning, and signifies the 
impression on a coin or medal. In j^hilosophy, it 
is used in its most general sense, to designate 
those forms which are conceived to exist in the 
mind of the Creator, according to which the 
character of all individual existences is deter- 
mined. In nature, type is that form which gives 
the character of similarity to all the individuals 
of a species, and at which nature seems continu- 
ally to aim. In theology, type signifies the pre-or- 



288 THE NATURE AND 

dained representative relation which certain persons^ 
events J and institutions of the Old Testament^ are con- 
ceived to hear to corresponding iyidividiials^ evenis, and 
institutions in the New Testament 

The classical and biblical usage of tuV/j? (type) 
is for the most part the same. The word occurs 
sixteen times in the New Testament, and sever- 
al times in the Septuagint; where it corresponds 
to the Hebrew words Dv'^ and n'J^n. In its 
primary sense it is used twice in the New Tes- 
tament, where it is employed to designate the 
print ovynark of the nails in our Saviour's hands. 
John 20: 25. In the secondary sense it occurs 
in Acts 7: 43, 44. Heb. 8: 5. In the last two 
passages there is a reference to Ex 25: 40, where 
the Septuagint version has Ty-rov, 

In the tropical sense of /on??, manner, the word 
is applied to the contents of a letter, (Acts 23: 25. 
3 Mace. 3: 30,) and to a doctrine (Fom. 4: 17. 
Comp. Rom. 2: 20.) In the sense of an example 
(uTTolin'yfAoc) it occurs frequently. (1 Cor, 10: 6, 11. 
Phil. 1: 17. 1 Thess. 3: 9. 1 Tim. 4: 12. Titus. 2: 7. 
1 Pet. 5: 3.) 3. It is applied to a person as bear- 
ing the form and figure of another person^ i. e. as hav- 
ing a pre-ordained connexion one with the oth- 
er, and bearing a mutual pre determined resem- 
blance in certain respects and circumstances. 
Thus in Rom. 5: 14. Adam is called a type of 
Christ. The same idea is conveyed by^ other 
terms in the New Testament, as by trxiu,^ shadow, 
in Col. 2: 17. Heb. 8: 5. 10: 1. : 'TTdoaflo^yi, figure in 
Heb. 0: 9. The correlative term, or that which 
corresponds to the Tyj)e, either in the way of 
designed similitude or antithesis, is avrirf;^«,-, an- 
titype. See 1 Pet 3: 21. Fleb. 9: 24 Although 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 289 

the Theological and Scriptural significations of 
the word t^fpc coincide only in a single instance, 
yet this is sufficient to justify the application of 
the term to designate the peculiar relation sub- 
sisting between certain persons, events and in- 
stitutions under the old dispensation and corre- 
sponding persons, events, and institutions, un- 
der the New, provided such a relation can be 
established by adequate proof. A Priori argu- 
ments against the existence of typical relations 
in the sense here intended, are of no fore* what- 
ever. The alleged connexion, if it exists at all, 
is simply one of the various methods employed 
by the Deity to convey infoimation in respect to 
future events, to establish the connexion be- 
tween ditterent dispensations of his Providence, 
and to display the wonderful and beautiful unity 
of his plan of grace in the economy of human re- 
demption and salvation. It is simply a matter 
of fact, therefore, to be established on evidence 
drawn exclusively from the word of God ; be- 
cause being like prophecy, supernatural, all ar- 
guments derived from the analogy of what are 
called typical forms in the works of creation, 
though aflbrding a presumption in its favor, are 
insufficient to establish such a connexion. The 
question then to be determined is, whether in 
point of fact God has employed this method of 
communicating divine knowledge and con- 
firming the truth of his word to his Church 
— whether there is evidence of such an intimate 
spiritual connexion between the Old and New 
Testaments, that, in the history, transactions, 
and religion recorded in the former there are 
persons, events, and institutions, which have a 
designed foreshadowing relation to certain per- 

19 



290 THE NATURE AND 

sons, events, and institutions in the latter. The 
existence of any such relation has been denied 
by not a few. But it is evident from various 
passages of the New Testament, and especially 
from the Epistle to the Hebrews, (see Heb. 8: 2, 
5. 9: 7-9, 24, 24. 10: 1, 9. 11: 8-10, 16,) that the 
doctrine of Typology in the sense which has 
been explained, rests on a Biblical basis ; and it 
has accordingly been held by thie Church fron? 
the earliest times down to the present day. In- 
deed it is difficult to see how any one can clear- 
ly and thoroughiy understand the revealed 
scheme of divine truth in its unity and com- 
pleteness, and' perceive the intimate connexion 
and beautiiul harmony subsisting between the 
several dispensations of God, who overlooks the 
typical relation which is disclosed in the in- 
spired lecoids. 

The analogy of nature warrants us in expect- 
ing that som* such proceedure on the part of 
the Divine Being would be developed in a vol- 
ume purporting to contain an inspired history 
of his revealed will and of his providential deal- 
ings with the human race. For the material 
world abounds in typical foims and special 
adaptations.^ And this method of communica- 
ting instructiosn in regard to the future, for the 
establishment and confirmation of faith in those 
who may embrace the Gospel, has the advan- 
tage of imparting vividness and picturesqueness 
to the inspired teaching. " The truth is exhib- 
ited ; not, as in systems of divinity, as a bare ab- 
straction ; not, as in'the words of Scripture, by a 

*See McCosli's Typical forms and special ends in 
Creation. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYrES. 291 

phrase cxi»ressivti enough, but still a mere coun- 
ter, bcjiring no resciiiblauce to that which it 
represents; but by ^ ptcturc^ which the mind, as 
it were, sees before it. With such lively images 
before us, we feel as if we were walking amid 
living realities." 

But while there is the very highest authority 
for re/il types, the absurd and ridiculous extent 
to which ty[)ical representations have been mul- 
tiplied by the ingenuity of divines, is calculated 
to bring the whole subject into disrepute, and 
has doubtless been the cause of much of the 
scepticism which has prevailed in regard to it. 
Typology is a field in which the excursive imagi- 
nation of Biblical interpreters, dogmatic theolo- 
gians, and fanciful preachers, has had a pretty 
wide scope for exercise, and the* field has in 
every age of the Church been industriously cul- 
tivated But the fruits produced by the toil 
and labor assiduously bestowed upon it, have 
not always been such as to afford healthful nu- 
triment to the children of God. They have 
served in many instances only to stimulate a 
morbid appetite and create a distaste for more 
solid and substantial aliment. Human ingenu- 
ity has been taxed to the utmost to discover re- 
semblances and detect typical relations in the 
Scriptures. All persons and facts which seemed 
to present some correspondence, especially in 
external circxnnstcmces^ have been treated as typical. 
Types have been confounded with other kindred 
images, and analogy, real or supposed, has been 
the only principle on which they have been ex- 
plained. Hence the importance of a proper dis- 
crimination, and of adopting some principle of 
typical interpretation not justly liable to the ob- 



292 THE NATURE ANB 

jection on the one hand of being too limited in 
its application, or on the other, of being too com- 
prehensive. Much confusion on the subject of 
types has arisen from the loose manner in which 
the word ii/pehixs been employed by theological 
writers, and by confounding it with other things 
which bear indeed some resemblance to it, but 
nevertheless are quite distinct. 

It is important to observe that types are 
not worthy but persons or things, which God in- 
tended to be prefigurative of future per- 
sons or events. There is no ii/pical sense of 
words^ distinct from the proper sense, as some 
writers have supposed. " When we explain a 
passage typically," says Pareau, *' we only sub- 
join one sense to the words; the typical senile 
exists in the things."^ 

Types have notunfrequently been confounded 
vtxih allegories ^uiX parables] but they are ol)vi- 
ously dissimilar, and should be carefully distin- 
guished. An allegory or parable is y^W//zoi<5; a 
type, on the contrary, is something real. The 
one is a picture of the imagination; the other is an 
historical fact. Whatever ^t be which is de- 
signed to prefigure something future, whether a 
a person, thing, institution or action, the type 
not less than the antitype must have a real, and 
not a merely imaginary existence. *' The es- 
sence of a type," says Ilolden, "consisting in its 
foreordained similitude to something future, re- 
quires it to be reality ; otherwise it would want 
the first and most important kind of resemblance, 
viz., truth. Fiction may resemble fiction ; one 

*Interpretation of the Old Testament. See also 
Stuart's Ernesti, p. 12. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 293 

ideal personage may be like another ; but there 
can be no substantial relationship between a 
nonentity and a reality. If that which is pre- 
figured be a fact, that which prefigures it must 
be a fact likewise. Hence, between the type 
and the antitype there is this correspondence, 
that the reality of the one presupposes the real- 
ity of the other.' t There are, it is true, some 
points of similarity between a type and an alle- 
gory. The interpretation of both is an interpre- 
tation of things, and not of words; and both are 
equally founded on resemblance. The type, more- 
over, corresponds to its antitype, as the protasis 
or immiediate representation in an allegory or par- 
able, corresponds to the apodosis, or its ultimate 
representation A material difference, however, 
exists in the quality of the things compared, as 
well as in the design of the comparison. When, 
for example, Joshua, conducting the Israelites 
to Canaan, is described as a type of our Saviour 
conducting his disciples to heaven ; or, when the 
sacrifice of the passover is described as a type of 
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; the subjecta 
of reference have nothing similar to the subjects 
of an allegory, though the comparison Vjetween 
them is the same. And tliougli a type, in refer- 
ence to its antitype, is called a shadow, while the 
latter is called the substance, yet the use of these 
terms does not imply that the former has less of 
historical verity than the latterj 

Again: The Type has been often confounded 
with the symbol or emblem ; but they are not the 
same. In a type there is always some real and 

t Dissertation on the Fall of Man, p. 313. 
tSee Marsh's Lectures in Div. Lcc. xvii, p. 89. 



294 THE NATURE AND 

obvious resemblance to the person or thing 
typified ; but this is not at all necessary in a 
symbol. In many instances the resemblance is en- 
tirely imaginary or of the most remote character. 
Hence a type is never, like a symbol, the repre- 
sentative of an abstract idea. Persons as well 
as things are typical ; but persons are never sym- 
bols Types in the theological sense, are wholly 
of divine origin and appointment. Symbols 
may be either of divine or human origin ; for 
the most part, they belong to the latter class. 
Symbols indicate a known purpose, well under- 
stood from the beginning ; whereas the relation 
of types to their antitypes is unknown, and dis- 
coverable only by a subsequent revelation- The 
term symbol is equally applicable to that which 
represents a thing past, present, or future. The 
paschal supper, together with all its attendant 
circumstances, was a symbolical representation 
and commemoration of a past transaction. The 
bread and wine in the Eucharist are symbols of 
the crucified body of Jesus. The images of the 
Cherubim over the mercy-seat, were a symbol of 
a present truth. The ram and he-goat in Dan- 
iel, and the white, red, black, and pale horses, 
in the Apocalypse, aresymbolsof future events."^ 
A Type has always reference to something fu- 
ture, and consequently it is a kind of prophecy. 
A Verbal prophecy predicts, whereas a type pre- 
-'igures. The former describes in words what is 
about to take place; the latter foreshows in its 

♦Symbols, which have a prospective reference, qr, 
in other words, prophetic symbols, like the Types 
under consideration, are of course exclusively bibli- 
•^al. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 295 

own outward sbnilaritij a future person or event. 
But there is nothing prefigurative in the baptis- 
mal water, or in the euoharistic bread and wine. 
They are merely emblems^ not types. Thence it 
appears that symbols and types belong to the 
same ffcnus, but differ in their spedes. A divine 
ordinance, however, may partake of the nature 
both of a symbol and a type; it may be at the 
same time commemorative and prefigurative; it 
may have both a retrospective and a prospective 
reference, and consec^uently exhibit the specific 
character of the symbol and also of the type. 
Such was the ordinance of the Jewisli passov^r. 
The paschal lamb was both a symbol and a type. 
The festival of which ti formed a prominent 
part, was intended te perpetuate the remem- 
brance of the miraculous lieliv^itince of the He- 
brews from Egyptian bondage, aod of the re- 
markable circumstances which attended it. 
Thus it primarily had a retrospective reference, 
and was commemorative of a past event in the 
history of the nation. So far it was symbolic, 
and was so regarded by the Hebrews. But in the 
divine purpose and appointment it also prefig- 
ured the propitiatory death and sacrifice of the 
Messiah — the true Lamb of God — by means of 
which the believer procures deliverance from 
the penalty of sin. The ntual or legal types of 
the Old Testament all possessed this complex 
character. They were symbolical in their imme 
diatc and ostensible design, a-a connected with an 
existing dispensation and religious worship. 
They were symbolically expressive of the great 
truths and principles of a syii ritual religion, 
which were common indeed to both dispensa- 
tions, but which could find only in the New, 



29G THE MATURE AND 

their proper development and complete realiza- 
tion. The New Testament declares the whole, 
therefore, to havd been shadows (types) of the 
better things of the Gospel (Beb. 10: 1. 8: 5. Col. 
2:16,17.) 

Once more ; Ihe mode of conveying informa- 
tion by types has been frequently confounded 
with prophetic instruction delivered by signifi- 
cant actions. These acts, of which we have al- 
ready spoken, are in «ommon with types, things 
as distinguished from words; and they ^xe pro- 
jihetical in their import. Hence we commonly 
find them classed under the head of prophetical 
igpes. But notwithstanding the points of resem- 
blance between them, the two are not identical. 
The significant acts in question were avowedly 
performed for a specific purpose, and with refer- 
ence, for the most part, to some event or events 
near at hand, in every case they were insulated 
act?, and not interwoven into the ordinary trans- 
actions of the prophet's life. Indeed they had 
no relation to the prophet himself; he performed 
them in an assumed character, and with de- 
signed and exclusive reference to their symbol- 
ical import and prophetical relation. But typical 
actions^ properly so called, arose directly out of 
the ordinary transactions in which the typical 
person was engaged. The character in which 
he performed them, was his own proper charac- 
ter, and not an assumed one. The acts them- 
selves were performed without any conscious- 
ness of their prospective and typical relation ; 
and the persons or events which they prefigured 
were remote. 

It is hardly necessary to add that a type is 
wholly distinct from a nutophor. Our Saviour in 



INTERPIIETATION OF TYPE^. 297 

the evangelical history is compared to a door^ a 
vlne^ a foundation^ a conirr-stonc ; but what reason- 
able man would hence infer that doors, vines, 
foundations, and corner-stones are types of the 
Messiah ! But when our Lord is called the 
Lconb of God. which taketh away the sins of the 
world, the word la?nb is indeed used in a meta- 
porical sense, but the assertion is much more 
than the application of a metaphor. It inti- 
mates a designed connexion between the lamb 
slain in sacrifice under the Mosaic dispensation, 
and the great expiation to be made in the per- 
son of the Messiah. 80 when Christ is called our 
Passover, which is sacrificed for us, the assertion 
is not a mere figure of speech ; but it implies 
that the passover bore a preordained relation to 
the Saviour and his mediatorial work. 

From what has been said, it will be perceived 
that three things are necessary to constitute the 
relation of type and antitype. There must be a 
rescmblanee or correspondence between the two; 
the resemblance must have been designedly God, 
and the type must have respect'io something fu- 
ture. 

1. Resemblance. — There must be a likeness in 
certain respects between the person or thing 
prefiguring, and that which it foreshadows. 
Similarity must lie at the foundation of a type 
in all cases. This requisite is too obvious to 
need illustration. Indeed, writers on this sub- 
ject have generally made this too exclusively the 
object of attention. Accordingly, when a re- 
semblance, real or imaginary, has been discov- 
ered between two persons or events under the 
two dispensations, this has been deemed quite 
sufficient to establish a preordained connexion 



298 THE JNATLllE AND 

between them. In this way it is easy to see how 
such persons as Job, Bazaleel, Aholiab, Phineas, 
Boaz, Absalom, Eliakim, Daniel, Antiochus 
Epiphanes, the unmarried brothers of him who 
left his widow childless, the hanged malefactors, 
and a thousand and one other persons and things 
to be met with in the Scriptures, came to be re- 
garded as types. 

When it is said that similariti/ in certain re- 
spects between the type and the antitype, is 
requisite to constitute that relation, this does 
not preclude the idea of dlsslnularlt}/ in other re- 
spects. And when the points of dissimilarity 
are brought particularly to our notice, in the 
way of contrast, the type is called antithetic. We 
have an example of this in Rom. 5: 14. 

2. The second requisite in a type is, that it he 
prepared and designed by God to prefigure its antitype. 
A type is not constituted such by the mere coin- 
cidence of ex^tT/ia/historical circumstances. There 
must be an internal union and resemblance. And 
this internal correspondence must be traced to 
the divine intention. No merely accidental or out- 
ward similitude can constitute a true type. A 
resemblance in very many respects may exist 
between two individuals, living at different pe- 
riods, without there being the remotest connex- 
ion between them. Similar examples, and his- 
torical parallels are everywhere observable. 
\pne person may successfully imitate the actions 
of another. One may casually be placed in cir- 
cumstances like those of another, and the con- 
duct of the two may be very similar in a variety 
of respects. But this similarity alone does not 
esto-blish a typical relation between them. 



INTERPRETATION OP TYPES. 299 

Guild^' finds no less than forty-nine typical re- 
semblances between Joseph and Christ, and sev- 
enteen between Jacob and Christ, not scrupling 
to swell the number by occasionally taking in 
acts of sin, as well as circumstances of the most 
trifling nature. Yet this does not prove that 
either Joseph or Jacob was really a type of our 
Saviour. If mere similitude were sufficient to 
constitute the relation of type and antitype, 
then would Capt. Fluellen's celebrated theory of 
a typical connexion between Alexander the 
Great and King Harry of Monmouth, be strictly 
true, being based on the following indubitable 
facts. 1st. That the birth-place of both com- 
menced with an M. 2d. That both were great 
fighters ; and 3d. That there was a river in Mon- 
mouth and also a river in Macedon, the name of 
which, however, the honest gentleman had for- 
gotten. The connexion between a type and its 
antitype must have been originally preconcerted 
and preordained by God himself. And it is this 
original design and preordination, which consti- 
tutes the peculiar characteristic of a prefigurative 
type, and distinguishes it essentially from all 
mere examples of natural phenominal resem- 
blances and other typical forms. Where this 
does not exist, the relation between two persons 
or things, however similar they may be, is not 
the relation of type and antitype.f But Cocceius, r 

*Moses Unveiled. 

i " To secure its purpose," says Dr. Dick, *' the 
type must be instituted by God, who alone can estab- 
lish the relation ; and it is by no means sufficient 
that, between two distinct persons or events, there 
should be an accidental resemblance. The essence 
of a type consists not in its similarity to another oh- 



*^00 THE NATURE AND 

m the contrary, a distinguished Hebrew schol- 
ar and learned expositor of Scripture in the 17th 
century, advanced the opinion that every event 
recorded in the Old Testament, which in any 
way resembled something to be found in the 
New, was to be regarded as typicalX Upon this 
broad foundation a multitude of writers soon 
commenced the erection of an edifice spacious 
enough to accommodate as many types as the 
ingenuity of man chose to create. So that, for 
more than a century and a half, the principle 
was universally admitted that ivhcre the analogy 

ject, but in its beings divinely appointed to be a rep- 
resentative of it."' Theol. vol. 1. p. 144. ** The 
great point to be established is, that the Ukeness was 
designed in the original institution. It is the pre- 
vious purpose and ijiteniion, which constitute the whole 
lelation of type and antitype.'' McClelland's Manu- 
al, p. 94. See also Marsh's Lee., pt. a , Lee. 6. 
Chevallier's Hulsean Lectures, p. 6. 

tJohn Cocceius (Koch) was born in Bremen in 1603, 
and died in Leyden in 1660. He successively held 
the Professorship of Biblical Philology in his native 
city, Bremen, and in Franeker ; and that of Theology 
in Leyden. He belonged to the Reformed Church, 
and was among the first to vindicate successfully the 
right of theology to an exegesis free and independ- 
ent of dogmatics, in opposition to the scholastic di- 
vines of the age. The views of Cocceius in regard lo 
tthe typology of Scripture, were embraced by his two 
eminent pupils, Hermann Witsius and Campegius 
Vitringa. To the same school of interpreters be- 
longed the English writers Mather, Keach, Wordeu, 
J. Taylor, and Guild, nearly all of whom lived 
towards the latterpartof the I7th century. These have 
since been followed by McEwen, Ridgley, Brown of 
Heddington, Laurentius, and a host of others. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 301 

is evident and manifest between things under the law 
and things under the gospel^ the former arc to he re- 
garded (on the ground simply of that analogy) as 
types of the latter. The excessive and absurd mul- 
tiplication of types resulting from the adoption 
of this principle, tended at length to bring typi- 
cal interpretations into disrepute, and either led 
to the rejection of proph'^tical types altogether, 
as a mere human invention, or disposed sober 
men to regard the subject of typology as hope- 
lessly involved in conjecture and uncertainty. 
We have said tliat the divine intention enters fun- 
damentally into the relation of type and anti- 
type. But consciousness of suck a relation in the 
mind of the sacred writer is not necessary. lie 
nee<l not know or feel that there is an estab- 
lished correspondence between the person or 
thing foreshadowing an<l that which is prefig- 
ured. Nor IS it needful that a typical person 
should be aware of the fact that he was de- 
signed to be such, or that he was manifested as 
hearing that relation. In like manner it is un- 
necessary that a typical institution should be 
known to be such by tliose among whom it was 
established. 

3. The last requisite in a type is, that it must 
have respect to something future. The Old Testa- 
ment types shadowed forth good things to come. 
*' Types were not appointed to represent j^resent 
but future realities. '^I'hey were a temporary 
mode of instruction pointing to another and 
clearer way of educating humanity in the high- 
est truth." In conse(iuence of possessing this 
prophetic character, types may be employed to 
prove ^ as well as to illustrate the gospel. Exam- 
ples, analogies, and resemblances, not announc 



302 THE NATURE AND 

ed as typical, are illustrative only. They ex- 
plain truth rather than prove it. The ulterior 
and prophetic reference, however, was not the 
only purpose for which a religious institution 
was anciently appointed. It might, and gener- 
ally did, subserve other purposes, subordinate- 
perhaps, to this, but nevertheless in themselves 
highly important and beneficial. And that sub- 
ordinate, but immediate purpose, was, probably, 
the only one which at the time was clearly and 
distinctly understood by those who observed the 
rite. Many, if not most, of the Mosaic ordinan- 
ces, in point of fact, served a twofold ofhce and 
purpose. While they pointed significantly to 
the better dispensation to come, as their ulti- 
mate reference, they symbolized to the Ifebrews 
present duties and responsibilities^ and inculcated 
moral virtues and religiou? obligations of vital 
importance. 

The vital question now presents itself: how 
are we to determine, whether an acknowledged 
resemblance between two persons or things in 
in the Old Testament is typical of something 
connected with Christ or his Church recorded 
in the New? Is there any principle which will 
guide us with sufficient accuracy for all practi- 
cal purposes in deciding whether there exists a 
special relation between the two, designed or 
ordained by God ? 

The i»revious design or preordained connex- 
ion constitutes, as we have seen, the typical re- 
lation. Now this must be shown by competent 
testimony. It will not answer, in a matter of 
this kind, to be guided by fancy and mere con- 
jecture. What testimony then is sufficient to 
establish the relation in question ? A proper 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 303 

and sutiicieiit Miiswer to this (]uestion, we think, 
is this: No person^ cocnl^ or institution shoald be re- 
garded as bjpical^ hut inhat maj he shown to he such 
from the Scripture ifse.ff. Here is a plain nnd sim- 
ple law, which furnishes a sure and sale crite 
rion. by which M. fanciful resemhlances, dignified 
with the name of tj/pfcal relations^ are excluded. 
The reason of the rule must commend itself to 
the sober judgment of every man : viz. that no 
one is competent to make known to us the di- 
vine intention, except (iod himself, or some per- 
son inspired and authorized by him. This law 
does not demand that there should oe an ex- 
press and formal declaration or explicit asser- 
tion totis verbis to that effect. It is enough that 
the allusion, be of such a nature^ and the connexion m 
which it is found be such as to afford a reasonable 
pre-nunptlon in favor of this opinion. And where 
there is room for doubt, that doubt may fairly 
be resolved on the affirmative side. The follow- 
ing quotations show conclusively that this prin- 
ciple accords subsfanticdli/ \N\t\i the views of some 
of the ablest English and American divines in 
the present century who have given their atten- 
tion to the subject. 

Bishop Marsh: — "The only possible source of 
information on this subject is Scripture itself. 
The only pos-<ible means of knowing that two 
distant, though similar, historical facts were so 
connected in the general scheme ot divine Prov- 
idence that the one was designed to prefigure the 
other, is the authority of that work in w^hich 
the scheme of divine Providence is unfolded. 
Destitute of that authority, we may confound a 
resemblance, subsequently observed, with a re- 
semblance ^^reorc/ame^t We may mistake a com^ 



304 THE NATURE AND 

parison, founded on a mere accidental parity of 
circumstances, for a comparison founded on a 
necessary and inherent connection. There is no 
other rule, therefore, by which we can dis- 
tinguish a real from a pretended type, than 
that of Scripture itself There are no other 
possible means^ by which we can Zrnoiy, that a 
previous design and a preordained connection 
existed."^ 

Bishop Van Milderi: — " It is essential to a type, 
in the Scriptural acceptation of the term, that 
there should be competent evidence of the di- 
vine intention in the correspondence between it 
and the antitype,^ — a matter not to be left to the 
imagination of the expositor to discover^ but 
resting on some solid proof from Scripture it- 

self't 

Ernesti : — "Those who look to the counsel or 
intention, as they call it, of the Holy Spirit, act 
irrationally, and open the road to the unlim- 
ited introduction of types. The intention of 
the Holy Spirit can be made known to us only 
by his own showing.''^ 

Prof. Stuart: — " If it be asked how far we are 
to consider the Old Testament as typical, T 
should answer, without any hesitation, just so 
much of it is to be regarded as typicnl as the 
New Testament afiirms to be so, and no more. 
The fact that any thing or event under the 
Old Testament dispensation was designed to 
prefigure something under the New, can be 
known to us only by revelation, and, of course, 

*Lectures pt. 2. Lee. G. 
tBampton Lectures, p. 239. 
iTerrott's Ernesti, Vol. 1, p . 25. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 305 

all that is not designated by divine authority 
as typical, can never be made so, by any author- 
ity less than that which guided the writers of 
the New Testaraent.'J 

Prof. Stov:^ : — " In regard to types and allego- 
ries^ we know of none, excepting those which 
are explained a.s such in the Bible itself. All 
the rest are merely c )njectural, and, though of- 
ten ingenious, are worse than idle, leading the- 
mind away from the truth, perverting it by false 
principles of interpretation, and making it the- 
mere sport of every idle fancy.f 

Dr. T. H. Home: — "Unless wo have the au- 
thority of the sacred writers themselves for it, v.e 
cannot conclude, with certainty, that this or that 
person or thing, which is mentioned in the Old 
Testament, is a type of Christ, on account of the 
resemblance which we perceive between them. 'J 

ChevalHer : — " The connection of typical events 
with those which they foreshow, can be deter- 
mined by authority only. For unless the Scrip- 
ture has declared that the connection exists, we^ 
can never ascertain that any resemblance, how- 
ever accurate, is any thing more than a fanciful, 
adaptation, and we may go on to multiply im- 
aginary instances without end." Again: "The 
error of those who suffer their imagination to- 
suppose the existence of types where they are 
not, should warn us that no action must be se- 
lected as typical of another, unless it be dis- 
tinctly declared or plainly intimated in some 
part of Scripture to possess that character."§ 

^Stuart's Ernesti, p. 13. 

flntroduction to the Study of the Bible, p. 35. 
$Introd. vol. 2. p. 530. 7th ed. 
^Hulsean Lectures, pp. 34, 54. 
20 



30G THE NATURE AND 

Christian Observer (London): — The truth of the 
whole matter (viz. of types) unquestionably lies 
in a short compass. The interpretations of this 
nature, which are adopted by Scripture itself 
are infallible ; but when they stand alone upon 
the authority of human invention and imagina- 
tion, or, what is sometimes absurdly introduced 
as the analogy of faith, they are simply fallible, 
and often very simple indeed. No man of com- 
mon sense will pretend, on such points, to any 
superior inspiration or judicial authority over 
another. Here the right of private judgment 
must take its most legitimate stand. The Scrip- 
tures, no doubt, are suited to every turn of mind 
and taste. The very large place which the im- 
agination occupies in the mind of man cannot 
have been unknown to him who framed the 
Scriptures for man. Hence we may justly ad- 
mire that ineffable wisdom which has given 
forth enough for the dullest and most sterile 
understanding of the wayfaring man, to guide 
him; and has superadded an abundance of most 
instructive and impressive analogies for every 
higher grade of intellect or imagination, not 
even refusing food to the most soaring and aeri- 
al of all minds, by the construction of narra- 
tives, occurrences and doctrines, which, with 
almost a miraculous closeness of application, 
may be made to fit into one another, and into 
the analogy of faith. It is, however, we repeat it, 
where these applications are warranted and 
made to our hands, by the words of inspiration 
it«elf, that we deem them either positively cer- 
tain or iibsolutely wise and safe || 

I Christ Obi. vol. 27. p. 236. 



INTEKPRETATION OF TYPKS. 6{} i 

McClelland: — "This (the previous purpose and 
uiiention) must be proved, and there is only one 
way of doing it. Show me from Scripture the 
existence of such a connection. Whatever per- 
sons or things in the Old Testament are asserted 
by Christ or his Apostles to have been designed 
prefigurations of persons or things in the New, 
I accept. But if you only presume the fact from 
a real or fancied analogy, you are drawing on 
your imagination, and assuming the dangerous 
liberty of speaking for God.'*! 

Ellicoit : — " We should not positively assert the 
existence of typical relations between persons, 
places, or things, unless it appears either direct- 
ly or by reasonable inference that such relations 
are recognized in Scripture.'" 

In the application of this principle, we find 
in the Old Testament two classies of types. 1. 
-Ritual Types, and 2. Historical Types, — embracing 
1. historical y)(fr^c//t.s, and 2. historical everdi. 

But it has been the singular fortune of the 
^principle in question to be opposed on opposite 
grounds. Some object to it as being too narrow 
and restrictive: while others object to it on the 
ground that it is too broad and comprehensive. 
To the former class of writers belong Fairbairn 
iind Dr. Davidson; to the latter Dr. W. L Alexar; 
der and Mr. Lord. 1. Fairbairn expresses strong' 
disapprobation of the Cocceian system, bailed on 
analogy; but he at the game time declares his 
dissent from the principle which we have laid 
down, based on authority, and in his elaborate 
work on the subject of typology ha* sought to 
lay open a via mtdia between the two. But we 

TManual of Bib. Int. p. 94. 



308 THE NATURE AND 

do not think he has been entirely successful. 
We have failed to discover in his instructive 
but diffuse treatise any clearly intelligible, well 
defined and substantial basis, on which the 
mind can rest with satisfaction. He regards the 
types which would fairly come under the Eule 
here prescribed as simply " exaynples^ taken from 
a vast storehouse, where many more may be 
found." While he contends in the main for 
Scripture authority in some sense to distinguish 
what is typical from what is not, he often con- 
verts his oiun theological ideas into the loarrant. 
•* Thus," says Davidson, " we are told that the 
cherubim were set up for representations to the 
eye of faith of earth's living creature-liood, and 
more especially of its rational and immortal,- 
though fallen head, with reference to the better 
hopes and destiny in prospect. From the very 
first they gave promise of a restored condition 
to the fallen ; and by the use afterwards made 
of them, the light became clearer and more dis- 
tinct," A:c., cVc."^^ All this is groundless and fai'- 
fetched. The tree of life w^as also a type of im- 
mortal life and paradisaical delights yet to be 
enjoyed by the people of God in ChrisLf Enoch 
is undoubtedly to be viewed as a type of Christ j; 
Noah was the type of him who was to come, in 
whom the righteousness of God should be per- 
fected. § Abraham was the type at once of the 
subjective and the objective design of the cove- 
nant, or in other words, of the kind of persons 
who were to be the subjects and channels of 
blessing, and of the kind of inheritance w^tii 



♦Fairbairn'i Typology, 2d ed. vol l,p. 240, 241. 
' fP. 214 tP.21S. §P.295. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYrsS. 309 

which they were to be blessed. 1| Pharaoh's de- 
struction was typical of Antichrist. I The taber- 
nacle was ' a type of Christ, as God manifest in 
the flesh, and reconciling flesh to God.'"^- Such 
things as these in the region of a biblical typol- 
ogy clearly indicates that a certain school of di- 
vines create types in abundance by the aid of 
their peculiar theology. Thinking that they 
magnify Christ and his dispensation in this man- 
ner, they virtually convert Judaism into Chris- 
tianity, instead of keeping them in their proper 
relations. They mistake the essential, concrete 
thing which constitutes a type."jf Dr. David- 
son objects to our principle chiefly on the fol- 
lowing grounds : ** It is admitted," he says, " that 
types partake of the nature of prophecy. Xow 
in order to connect the thing or person de- 
scribed in prophecy as future w^ith its counter- 
part, we do not require the exposition of the 
Scripture writers themselves. A prophecy is not 
said in Scripture in most cases, to be fulfilled in 
a person or event, even w'here we have reason to 
believe that it is so. No one dreams of demand- 
ing the express testimony of an inspired writer 
for demonstrating the meaning of what is 
fulfilled. What w^as predicted is not identified 
with its counterpart when the latter takes place. 
Why then should a different rule be applied to 
types ? Why should their spiritual sense be 
every where pointed out by the Scripture wri- 
ters themselves ? Are we not warranted in as- 
suming that there are predictions in the Old 
Testament which were at least partially fulfilled 

IIP. 306. 7V0I. 2d, p. 56. **P. 236. 

f fDavideon's Home's Intro rol, 2. p. 444. 



310 THE NATURE AND 

in circumstances and persons belonging to the - 
New, without its being expressly said that they 
were so fulfilled ? In like manner, may it not be 
inferred that some types are not indicated in 
the Xew Testament which must nevertheless 
have been really such ? The prophetic Scrip- 
tures have their character. We cannot always- 
fix their meaning or determine their scope. 
There is no key to the interpretation of prophe-- 
cy in the New Testament. Neither is there, in 
many instances, an express declaration that a 
passage is prophetical in its nature; so that we 
may sometimes mistake history for prophecy ,. 
and vice versa. Types should be regarded in the 
same manner."^^ Much of this objection lies 
against the principle as stated by Bishop Marsh 
and Prof. Stuart, viz that an express declara- 
tion by Christ or his apostles to that effect is 
necessary to establish the typical relation. But 
its force in this particular, we think, is obviated 
by the more comprehensive character of the- 
principle as expressed above. The case drawn 
b^ Dr. D. from prophecy, does not seem to be - 
altogether parallel. Prophecies in general may 
be ascertained to be such from the nature of the 
subject, the form of expression, or the context, 
and from these sources we may satisfactorily de- 
termine their proper meaning and fulfilment, ir 
respective of any declaration or intimation to 
that efiect in the New Testament. But it is im- 
possible in this way to ascertain what is typical 
and what not, in the Old Testament. Types 
are indeed a species of prophecy, but they are 
concealed prophecies, which only their comple- 

*David3on's Home, vol. 2, p, 439. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYTES. 311 

tion can indicate or explain. There may un- 
doubtedly be typical persons and things in the 
Old Testament which are not alluded to as such 
in the New ; but we have no means of ascer- 
taining what they are. Indeed we should not 
have known of the existence of typical persons 
and institutions in the Old Testament at all, had 
we not been so advised in the New. 

2. But there is another class of interpreters 
who object to the principle in question as ad 
milling of too wide an application, and who 
would greatly curtail the typical matter of Scrip- 
ture. Thus Dr. W. L. Alexander"^ defines types to 
be " symbolical institutes expressly appointed 
by (jrod, to prefigure to those among whom they 
were set up certain great transactions in con- 
nection with that plan of redemption, which, in 
the fulness of time, was to be unfolded to man- 
kind." The same view has been adopted and 
defended at length by Mr. Lord.f According 
to this writer types must possess the following 
distinctive marks : They must have been spe- 
cially constituted such by God; they must have 
been known to be so constituted and contem- 
plated as such by those who had to do with 
them; and they must have been continu<^d till 
the coming of Christ; when they were abroga- 
ted or superceded by something analogous in 
the Christian dispensation. By the definition of 
Alexander and the distinctive marks of Lord, 
historical types in the Old Testament are en- 

*Conn6ction and Harmonies of the Old and New 
Testament. 1841. 

fSee Lord's Ecclesiastical and Literary Journal ^ 
Ko. 15. 



312 THE NATURE AND 

tirely excluded, and b}'^ the latter especially, 
nothing is admitted as belonging to this char- 
acter but what appertained to "the tabernacle 
worship, or to the propitiation and homage of 
God;" this, in his judgment, embraces the en- 
tire sphere of the typical. All the distinctive 
and essential marks of a type which Lord lays 
down, are, in the sense intended by the writer, 
incapable of Scrip tura,l proof '* The strictly re- 
ligious symbols of the Old Testament worship 
were not specifically constituted types, or for- 
mally set up in that character any more than 
such transactions as the deliverance of the He- 
brews from Egypt, or the preservation of Xoah 
in the deluge, which he denies to have been 
typical. In the manner of their appointment, 
viewed by itself, there is no more to indicate a 
reference to the Messianic future in the one 
than in the other. Neither were they for cer- 
tain known to be types, and used as such by the 
Old Testament worshippers. They unquestion- 
ably were not in the time of our Lord ; and how 
far they may have been so at any previous pe- 
riod, is a matter only of doubtful speculation. 
Nor, finally, was it by any means an invariable 
and indispensable characteristic, that they 
should have continued in use till they were su- 
perceded by something analogous in the Chris- 
tian dispensation. "J In point of fact, m^any of 
them did continue in use until the redemptive 
work of Christ was finished on the cross ; as, for 
example, the sacrifices and other ritual observ- 
ances of the Temple worship ; and the commem- 
orative ordinance of the Passover. But most of 



jFairbahn'a Typology, toL 1, p. 51. 



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 313 

the historical types, whether persons or events, 
were of such a nature as not to admit of being 
repeated even by a symbolical or commemora- 
tive rite. 

Types have been variously divided and classi- 
fied by different writers. They speak of natural, 
moral, historical, legal, prophetical, and other 
types But for most of these classes there is no 
foundation vrhatever. The classification pro- 
posed by Chevallier is probably the best which 
has been made. It is the following : — 1. Those 
which are supported by accomplished prophecy, 
delivered previously to the appeara-nce of the 
antitype; as Moses, (Deut. 18: 15), Joshua, the 
High Priest. Zech. 3: 8. 2. Those supported by 
accomplished prophecy, delivered in the person 
of the antitype ; as the brazen serpent, (Num. 
21: 5, 9. Comp. John 3: 14) ; the manna eaten 
"by the Israelites in the Desert, (John 6: 32, 49) ; 
the paschal sacrifice, (1 Cor. 5 : 7, 8. Comp. Lu. 
22: 14-16); the miraculous preservation of Jo- 
nah in the belly of the great fish, (John 11 : 32. 
Matt. 12: 40). 3. Those which in Scripture are 
expressly declared, or clearly assumed to be 
typical, after the prefigured events had taken 
place; as the numerous types contained in the 
Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, (the Epistle 
to the Hebrews /)(^.s.S't*7?i) also Adam, Melchisedec, 
Joshua, the son of Xun, David, Solomon, Elijah 
as a type of John Baptist, etc. 

In the interpretation of types the following 
rules should be observed : 

I. The analogy bcitveen u/pe and antitype should 
not he urged beyond the points to which revelation ha^ 
extended it. This rule is founded on the princi- 
ple that the relation between type and antitype 



314 THE NATURE AND 

is, and must be, general ; and consequently it was 
never designed that the comparison should be 
extended to every particular circumstance. In 
every case, especially of typical persons, there 
are many things in the type which have and 
could have no place in the antitype, because the 
persons and things related are respectively 
earthly and spiritual, imperfect and perfect. 
And for the same reason, some things are pecu- 
liar to the antitype, and could have no counter- 
part in the type. It is not, therefore, through- 
out the entire compass of their history, but only 
to certain specific acts, or to certainly divinely 
ajjpointed offices or relations, that we care to 
look for what is properly typical. In some in- 
stances we may di^cowev other points of resemblance ' 
also, which it may be interesting and instructive 
to consider; but these being, as far as we know, 
accidental^ do not enter into the typical relation. 
Thus Jonah was a type of Christ only in refer- 
ence to his being three days in the belly of the 
great fish, and coming forth at the end of that 
period alive and unharmed. His disposition, 
conduct, and character, have no concern with 
the typical relation he bore in that part of his 
history to which we have adverted. To regard 
the sinful acts of typical persons as prefigurative 
of Christ, as has sometimes been done, is little 
short of blasphemy. Indeed, it is never in their 
personal or private characters that individuals 
are types of the Messiah. If they were official 
persons, then the typical relation belongs not to 
their private, but their oJHcial character. Thus 
Moses typified Christ as a prophet, lawgiver, 
leader of the children of Israel, and head of the 
ancient dispensation. Interpreters of the Coc- 



IXTKRPRETATION OF TYPES. 315 

ceian school, however, not satisfied with this 
general and official relation between Moses and 
Christ, have enumerated various particular ac- 
tions of his life as typical. He married an Ethio- 
pian, a stranger, and a black woman ; so Christ 
espoused the Gentiles, who were strangers to 
Ood, and by reason of sin, as black as hell could 
make them. He sweetened the bitter w^aters of 
Marah by a tree cast into it; so Christ sweetens 
all our afflictions by means of his cross. He 
led Israel through the Eed Sea; so Christ leads 
his Church through a sea of tribulation. As 
Moses was transfigured on Mt. Sinai and seemed 
so glorious that the children of Israel could not 
behold his face; so Christ was also transfigured 
on Mount Tabor so that his disciples were 
amazed and knew not what to say.^* 

The Prophets^ as a class, prefigured Christ the 
great teacher: so likewise ihe priests and kings oi 
the Old Testament. But we are not warranted 
from this to regard the particular acts of indi- 
viduals belonging to either of these classes as 
typical of Christ. It was only in their public 
and official position, and not in their private ca- 
pacity that they were thus related to the Son of 
God. The Levitical priesthood and the ritual 
sacrifices of the Mosaic economy prefigured 
Christ our great High Priest, and the sacrifice of 
himself offered for sin on Calvary. Yet there 
were many things in that priesthood which have 
no counterpart in the antitype. The High 
Priest was to ofter sacrifices for his ov:n sins 
(Heb. 5: 3) as well as those of others, which can- 
not apply to Christ (Heb. 7: 27). The Aaronie 

*K«ach on the Metaphors, p. 960, ed. 1779. 



316 THE NATURE AND 

priesthood, moreover, was weak and unprofita- 
ble — attributes which certainly -did not belong 
to the Redeemer. The Tabernacle, with its 
furniture and religious services, as a whole, is 
affirmed in the epistles to the Hebrews and the 
Colossians to have been of a typical nature; but 
it was never intended tha.t the relation of type 
and antitype should be extended to every mi- 
nute particular. The following examples, how- 
ever, will show to what lengths the comparison 
has been carried by writers of the Cocceian 
school. The ark of the Covenant, (says Witsius), 
being partly of wood and partly of gold, aptly 
represents the two natures of Christ.*- The ta- 
ble of shewbread was a type of Christ, because it 
was covered over with gold, and had a crown 
about it, denoting the purity of Christ's human- 
ity with the glory of his deity and the majesty 
of his kingdom; because it had food set upon it, 
of which none were to eat except the priest, sig- 
nifying that spiritual nourishment which is in 
Christ, which none receive or partake of but be- 
lievers only, or the royal priesthood of the fViith- 
ful. The bread v^^as always to be upon the table, 
which signifies that in Christ there is food con- 
tinually for our souls. There was much bread, 
twelve loaves, which signifies that in Christ 
there is food or nourishment enough for all who 
realize their need of him ; or it shows how plen- 
tifully God feeds his elect; his poor shall not 
want bread, his table is ahvays spread, always 
richly and abundantly furnished. f 

The burnt-offering of fowls was a type of 

*0n the Covenants, vol. 2, p. 208. 
fKeach, p. 969. 



INTERPRETATION OF TTPKS. 317 

Christ, because they were turtle doves or pigeons, 
signifying his meekness and innocency. The 
neck of the fowl was to be pinched with the 
nail, that the blood might flow out ; but not that 
the head should be plucked ott* from the body. 
AJi this signified how Christ should die and shed 
his blood; yet, thereby his deity, as the head or 
principal part, should not be divided from his 
humanity; nor yet by his death should he who 
is our head be taken from his Church, but should 
rise again, and be with them by his Spirit for- 
ever. The blood thereof was strained or pressed 
out at the side of the altar, before it was pluck- 
ed and laid upon the altar to be burned; signi- 
fying thereby the straining or pressing out of 
Christ's blood, in his grievous agony in the gar- 
den, before he was taken and stripped to be cru- 
cified: and soon ad nausmm.X Now there is no 
way of avoiding this palpable error, and egregious 
trifling with the word of God, but by strictly 
confining our expositions of types to those ex- 
press points in respect to which the Scripture 
itself authorizes us to consider them as typical ; 
or which immediately flow from the nature of 
the particular relation or character, which we 
are taught to regard as constituting the analogy 
between the type and antitype. 

II. Xo doctrine sJ'OuId hr regarded as fandama^tal 
tvhich is founded sohly on V/plcal analogy. The 
great and essential truths of the word of God, 
are taught in plain and unequivocal language. 
They are not concealed under the veil of types 
and shadows, or left to be deduced from obscure 



jSec Keaclfs metaphors — quoted in Davidson's 
Home, p. 443. 



318 THE NATURE &C. OF TYPES. 

and ligurative passages. The typical manifesta- 
tions of the divine counsels will be found in 
perfect harmony with these truths. They serve 
to illustrate and confirm the great doctrines of 
salvation ; but they do not reveal them for the 
first time, nor exclusively. They strengthen 
our belief in the truth and reality of what is 
made known elsewhere and in other and clearer 
forms. Our belief, for instance, in the doctrine 
of atonement, may be greatly streiagthened by 
contemplating the fact that it was not only re- 
vealed to our fathers by the clear intimations of 
verbal prophecy, but prefigured in the numer- 
ous sacrifices which were ofi:ered from the time 
of Adam to the death of Christ. At the same 
time, it is highly improbable that Jehovah would 
•conceal, under the veil of figure, parable, and 
type, truths necessary to salvation, and nowhere 
disclosed in plain and literal terms. No person, 
therefore, can be expected to receive, as a ne- 
cessary article of faith, any doctrine, founded 
exclusively or primarily on the types and shad- 
ows of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. 



THE END. 



ERRATA. 

The reader is requested to correct with his 
pen the following errata. Other typographical 
errors of minor importance will be easily de- 
tected, and need not be noticed here : — 

Page 65, line 14 from bottom — for "not able" 
read "not be able." 

Page 66, line 8 from top — for "Coccaous" read' 
''Coccius." 

Page 190, line 7 from top — for "1341" read 
^4841." 

Page 137, line 11 from bottom — for 'Svith 
tropes" read '4n tropes." 

Page 166, line 16 from top — for "arising from" 
read "suggested by." 

Page 175, line 5 from bottom — for "rationally" 
read "soberly." 

Page 211, line 5 from top — for "profess'" read 
possess." 

Page 224, line 9 from top — for "expressive" 
read "express." 

Page 229, line 9 from bottom — for "they rest" 
read "it rests." 

Page 253, line 8 from top — for 'its answer" 
read "it answers." 

Page 271, line 17 from top — for "excite" read: 
**suggest." 

Page 288, line 6 from top — for "is" read "are." 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PresetvationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER tH PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



